Serious question Re: guns

SmarterthanYou said:
The above is all revisionist history. in other words, it's wrong.
Click to expand...
The original wording by Madison was this you fucking idiot:

“A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

So, stupid fuck, that’s EXACTLY what I posted.

Any post by you is qualified by you being the owner of the stupidest fucking post in the history of the forum. “Vehicles cannot be necessary” in modern society
 
We had a citizen army back then. The people were the fighters and they needed weapons because a fledgling country was vulnerable to established nations. That explains the 2nd and why it does not mean anything to today.
 
domer76 said:
The original wording by Madison was this you fucking idiot:

“A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

So, stupid fuck, that’s EXACTLY what I posted.

Any post by you is qualified by you being the owner of the stupidest fucking post in the history of the forum. “Vehicles cannot be necessary” in modern society
Click to expand...
it doesn't matter what madisons original wording was. It only matters what was ratified by we the people. So, after a lengthy debate between federalists and anti-federalists, the ratified version tells the new central government that they have no power or authority over the arms of the people.

I also have to wonder if you and dutch aren't related in some way. You both stick to the same debunked bullshit when you've been thoroughly discredited
 
Nordberg said:
We had a citizen army back then. The people were the fighters and they needed weapons because a fledgling country was vulnerable to established nations. That explains the 2nd and why it does not mean anything to today.
Click to expand...
wrong. i'm tired of proving you wrong with numerous pieces of historical documentation over this.
 
ZenMode said:
Acknowledging that crime happens, and that guns protect people from those crimes, is not calling anything a warzone.

They have guns because guns are easily accessible in the US because we have a constitutionally protected right to own them.

My last post:

You said: You want that walk to be safer? Then put less guns on the street, not more.

I said: Creating laws, like NY has, that disallow carrying guns in public, only puts innocent people in danger because law-abiding citizens DO follow the law, and leave their guns at home while criminals don't.
Click to expand...
Where do criminals get their guns?
 
ZenMode said:
The day before it passed, I could buy an AR-15. The next day I couldn't because the government took away my ability to do it.

That is text book "Losing a right".
Click to expand...
You could still buy a gun.

No rights lost.

The amendment doesn't guarantee you the right to purchase anything.
 
Crepitus said:
You could still buy a gun.

No rights lost.

The amendment doesn't guarantee you the right to purchase anything.
Click to expand...
I couldn't buy THAT gun. I literally lost the right to buy THAT gun. One minute I could buy it. The next minute I couldn't. That is literally losing a right that I had seconds earlier.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
it doesn't matter what madisons original wording was. It only matters what was ratified by we the people. So, after a lengthy debate between federalists and anti-federalists, the ratified version tells the new central government that they have no power or authority over the arms of the people.

I also have to wonder if you and dutch aren't related in some way. You both stick to the same debunked bullshit when you've been thoroughly discredited
Click to expand...
That quote has never been debunked because that’s the EXACT wording, which reflects the sentiment and intent of the 2nd. Not some shit the NRA convinced idiots like you to believe.

Nobody knows how or why the wording got changed because the Senate committee working on the wording never recorded the debates.

Even with the fuckup of the Heller decision, “vehicles cannot be necessary”, gun restrictions are still constitutional
 
Nordberg said:
I am tired of your confident ignorance. You have proven no such thing because you are wrong as usual. Hope you enjoy your flintlock.
Click to expand...
Look, this guy once told me that “vehicles cannot be necessary” in a modern society because they are not explicitly protected in the Bill of Rights.

He still believes it’s a right to carry anything, anywhere, anytime, for any reason. DESPITE any SCOTUS decisions. Nothing that moron claims has any credibility.
 
ZenMode said:
I couldn't buy THAT gun. I literally lost the right to buy THAT gun. One minute I could buy it. The next minute I couldn't. That is literally losing a right that I had seconds earlier.
Click to expand...
That’s the way laws work. The abortion issue is a perfect example.
 
ZenMode said:
I agree, but a right is still being lost.
Click to expand...
One could look at it a couple ways. It may not have been a right all along. The pro-life claim that on abortion.

My take on the 2nd is that it was never an individual right like Heller decided. Historically, it was a collective right in the context of the militia.
 
domer76 said:
One could look at it a couple ways. It may not have been a right all along. The pro-life claim that on abortion.

My take on the 2nd is that it was never an individual right like Heller decided. Historically, it was a collective right in the context of the militia.
Click to expand...
Sure, there is a lot involved in the interpretation of the Constitution and, Yes, some laws do infringe on your rights. Maybe all laws in Fringe on your rights depending on how you view rights. In the end, when you lose the ability to purchase a specific gun, you have lost the right to purchase that gun. When that changes, as it did with AR-15s, you regain that right. Losing partial rights isn't the same as losing all of your rights, but a right is still lost.
 
domer76 said:
Look, this guy once told me that “vehicles cannot be necessary” in a modern society because they are not explicitly protected in the Bill of Rights.

He still believes it’s a right to carry anything, anywhere, anytime, for any reason. DESPITE any SCOTUS decisions. Nothing that moron claims has any credibility.
Click to expand...
I said the 2nd is about a citizen army. Smarter than Nobody cited a line saying "the body of people, being the best security of a free state" should have guns, and in what is left of his mind, he thinks he proved me wrong. He argued for my point. I shudder when he posts.
 
ZenMode said:
"Now you have the "right" to own a WHOLE LOTTA OTHER WEAPONS, just not a relative few deemed to dangerous for the general public."

That's exactly what I said when I made the comparison to pitbulls vs other dogs, except there isn't a constitutional amendment explicitly stating our right to own dogs. There is a right to bear arms and, regardless of how you want to rationalize it, a right was lost when AR's were outlawed.

That IS the answer to your question.
Click to expand...
No, it's not....because the dog comparison is not compatible, being that pit bulls are currently being bought and sold and have NOT had a motion for a national ban (breeding, selling, owning, etc.) in my lifetime.

And last time I checked, no nut case drove up to a crowd and released a truck of starving, raging pit bulls on them.

Essentially, you are doing EXACTLY what I previously said ... being insipidly stubborn by just repeating the SOS and ignoring any fact based/rational rebuttal (unless one counts the absurdity you just previously gave).
 
domer76 said:
He’s assuming it’s a right to possess any gun, carry it anywhere, for any purpose. That’s an erroneous assumption and has NEVER been the case in the entire history of the country.

The NRA has been very successful at undermining any effort for reasonable gun control. Convincing so many gullible morons that ANY restrictions on weapons is unconstitutional.

If one really read the history behind the 2nd Amendment, they would know it was in the context of military use, not the bullshit it’s morphed into today. Madison originally wrote it with a conscientious objector clause, obviously used only in military context.
Click to expand...
Bingo!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top