NRA and Right Wing Talking About Breaking Our Constitution

Anti-Party said:
You keep trying to make the argument that you know exactly what the founders were thinking at that point in time but you won't challenge the definition of the 2nd Amendment.

Look, you try to come off as being a constitutional guy along with some of these other clowns. But the fact is the exact wording of the constitution says we need gun regulation and you all are frustrated that you were fed lies by Fox News.
Click to expand...
you are wrong. the amendment says 'well regulated militia', not 'well regulated arms'.
 
Anti-Party said:
So your breakdown of "Well regulated Militia" is "individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia. You are simply changing the constitutional words into something they are not even close to.
Click to expand...
Hee hee... I knew you had no idea what I was talking about -thank you for confirming it.

"The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home" is the holding from the Supreme Court in DC v Heller, the controlling jurispridence in the matter.
That is, its not MY interpretation, it is THE interpretation.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

Your ignorance knows no bounds, and yet you expect your arguments to be taken seriously. How cute.
Fortunately for the pro-gun side, most on the anti-gun side are just like you.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
It is the height of stupidity to believe that the founders, after having successfully freed themselves from an oppressive central government and standing army, would write that only the government and standing army had a right to bear arms.
Click to expand...

You really suck at reading comprehension.
 
Liberty said:
“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government”
Thomas Jeffersons

But what the heck. You're just to smart.
Click to expand...


I don't know why it was deleted, but my response to this was deleted yesterday. I guess a mod didn't like being punk'd?

That's a false Jefferson quote. He never said it, along with much of the quotes y'all are using.

"When governments fear the people, there is liberty," reads the quotation. "When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
Flaws and brilliance of Thomas Jefferson
Marine: I won't register my guns

The same quotation has been posted dozens of times in other readers' posts. Some readers worked to debunk it by mentioning Monticello.org, the Thomas Jefferson Foundation's website, which has a section devoted to "spurious" quotations that have been attributed to the third president of the United States. The website lists several variations of the quotation, featured on two pages, and says staff "have not found any evidence that Thomas Jefferson said or wrote" those words.
Click to expand...

Wait. There's more!

Many of these quotations are circulated and reposted on social media or appear in chain e-mails," he said via e-mail. "Every time I see one of these bogus quotes, I call it out as fake."
Click to expand...

And...


Anna Berkes, research librarian at the Jefferson Library, said there are extensive records of Jefferson's writings and communications. Just about every quotation from Jefferson can be documented somehow, she said.

The earliest reference to the "tyranny in government" quotation that Berkes has noted thus far is within a 1989 opinion-editorial about gun rights from The Orlando Sentinel in Florida. She said the first part of the section of the article where the quotation appears, which begins with "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms," has been verified. But the rest of it has not been found in Jefferson's writings.

Berkes said there are often clues that help identify quotes from Jefferson, such as the vocabulary of his time and the typical sentence styles he used. Over time, Berkes added, a researcher gains a keen sense for these discrepancies; Jefferson composed mostly written communication rather than text meant to be spoken.

"Jefferson was very wordy, and a lot of the quotes I see are very snappy," Berkes said. "They sound like they were maybe composed by a 20th century speechwriter."
Click to expand...
 
SmarterthanYou said:
i cant believe im doing this again.
1)well regulated, to the founders, meant well trained and in good fighting order.
2) the amendment isnt about arming or regulating a militia, nor is it about regulating arms. it's about telling the feds, go away.
Click to expand...

Listen. Have you ever read law? The reason they have run-on sentences is so you don't get confused and jump subject to subject like you just did. The 2nd Amendment is ONE SENTENCE. It doesn't start off talking about a well trained and good fighting military then break off and start talking about people having the right to keep and bear arms. There was no period after the word "state".

You and the other guy need to look up the word "militia". It is a two meaning word. It can mean a organized military group, which is what you falsely think it is. Or it can mean an armed group of individuals that may be needed to fight if the time comes. You tell me which makes more sence for this amendment.

Does it make sense that the government needs to well train our militia just in case our government needs them to fight against our government?!? Does this make sense to you?!? Because this is what YOU are stating.
 
sPzAbt505 said:
Hee hee... I knew you had no idea what I was talking about -thank you for confirming it.

"The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home" is the holding from the Supreme Court in DC v Heller, the controlling jurispridence in the matter.
That is, its not MY interpretation, it is THE interpretation.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

Your ignorance knows no bounds, and yet you expect your arguments to be taken seriously. How cute.
Fortunately for the pro-gun side, most on the anti-gun side are just like you.
Click to expand...

You jumped from TRANSLATING the 2nd Amendment to this DEFINITION interpretation of the Amendment. Maybe if you could keep on track with the conversation people might know what you were talking about.

I never said anything about gun grabbing CAN YOU READ KID? How old are you?
 
Anti-Party said:
Listen. Have you ever read law?
Click to expand...
Yes, yes I have. Lots of it.
Here's some law for you to read:

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Click to expand...

And, some more:
The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.
Click to expand...
In layman's terms: Your argument is unsound.
 
It looks like there are two possible interpretations of the 2nd Amendment;

A) Well regulated citizen gun ownership, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

B) A well regulated military, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

B) assumes we need regulation on the military to ensure the people that hire and train them will never become Nazi's......sounds pretty stupid to me.
 
Anti-Party said:
Listen. Have you ever read law? The reason they have run-on sentences is so you don't get confused and jump subject to subject like you just did. The 2nd Amendment is ONE SENTENCE. It doesn't start off talking about a well trained and good fighting military then break off and start talking about people having the right to keep and bear arms. There was no period after the word "state".
Click to expand...
Apparently I read it better than you do.

Anti-Party said:
You and the other guy need to look up the word "militia". It is a two meaning word. It can mean a organized military group, which is what you falsely think it is. Or it can mean an armed group of individuals that may be needed to fight if the time comes. You tell me which makes more sence for this amendment.
Click to expand...
I've always considered the militia of the 2nd Amendment to be the people themselves. just like the founders did.

Anti-Party said:
Does it make sense that the government needs to well train our militia just in case our government needs them to fight against our government?!? Does this make sense to you?!? Because this is what YOU are stating.
Click to expand...
the government is irrelevant to the issue. I, like the founders, consider it a right AND duty to be well regulated. I have been trained by the government already and have trained others as well. Are YOU well regulated? have YOU trained yourself to defend freedom?
 
SmarterthanYou said:
Apparently I read it better than you do.

I've always considered the militia of the 2nd Amendment to be the people themselves. just like the founders did.

the government is irrelevant to the issue. I, like the founders, consider it a right AND duty to be well regulated. I have been trained by the government already and have trained others as well. Are YOU well regulated? have YOU trained yourself to defend freedom?
Click to expand...

Oh so you changed your stance, no suprise there.

So your new stance is "well regulated" doesn't mean "well regulated" it means "well trained"..............I'll bite

Note there are TWO definitions of "regulated". Both definitions use the term "control". You chose the less likely definition "to control or supervise"

You are basically stating the 2nd Amendment says, "Well controlled and supervised citizens, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

You lose either way.
 
So since you have finally agreed that "militia" is the armed citizens you have to make the choice of what "regulated" means.

A) Control over the population
B) Regulated gun ownership
 
Note: I am not trying to hurt anyones feelings. I am not trying to make anyone mad. But I will stand by the words of the Constitution no matter what. If I was proven to be wrong, I would accept it. If the person who proved me wrong wasn't rude, I would thank them.

In my opinion I've only solidified that I am right in these debates.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top