2nd Amendment Conversation from the Defund thread

Are you saying my post has no validity?
Your post has no validity. You are attempting to discard the Constitution.
Unless you want to return to the early days of the Wild West (even then, some towns had gun regulations, don't cha know).
The Wild West wasn't like it's portrayed in the movies. It is unconstitutional for any government to ban or limit guns (or any other weapon).
The first 4 words of the 2nd Amendment cannot be taken out of context...state militias STILL exist in many states, REGULATED by those states. Then there's the National Guard, which falls under both state and federal controls.
You cannot use the first four words to cancel the rest of the 2nd amendment.
All 50 states are "free". And what type of "security" are you referring to precisely?
There are currently only 48 States. The loss of California and New York to dictatorship and oligarchy, respectively, you see.
 
The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

Yes. So? You are ignoring the rest of the 2nd amendment again.
 
True enough! But like it or not, guns must be regulated as well, least you want to come across some yahoo with a .50 machine gun on his roof who mistakes you for a crook on night.

Well, all machine guns (without an ATF license) are illegal.
Oh, .50 BMG ammo is over $3.30 a round. That's in bulk if
you can get it. Then there's expensive (hazmat) shipping.
 
Nope. The law itself is illegal.

So?

See what they say if you get caught with an operable machine gun and no ATF license (or ATF registration in some states).

So, having a .50 BMG machine gin would be very expensive to shoot, especially in fully automatic.
It's doubtful "some yahoo" could afford to shoot it. Then, there's the cost ($12,000) of the gun.
 
Well regulated militia'. being necessary to keep the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
It says well-regulated militia. That is not what we have or ever have had. It says necessary to keep the security of a free state. That was because we had citizen-soldiers and no standing army. We have an enormous standing army and the free state is not dependent on people having guns. The security of the free state is divorced from the right to own guns. It is actually threatened by them.
We would be wise to vastly limit gun access. We have people living in terror due to more guns than people. We have mass shootings weekly. We have our kids getting trained in how to hide from shooters. That should not be and I can tell you how to stop it.l

you still speak without knowledge, or you continue to spread disinformation to eliminate the right of the people......

The right of the people to keep and bear arms has been recognized by the General Government; but the best security of that right after all is, the military spirit, that taste for martial exercises, which has always distinguished the free citizens of these States....Such men form the best barrier to the liberties of America — Gazette of the United States, October 14, 1789.

There are other things so clearly out of the power of Congress, that the bare recital of them is sufficient, I mean the "...rights of bearing arms for defence, or for killing game..." These things seem to have been inserted among their objections, merely to induce the ignorant to believe that Congress would have a power over such objects and to infer from their being refused a place in the Constitution, their intention to exercise that power to the oppression of the people. —ALEXANDER WHITE (1787)

And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms....The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. — Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William S. Smith in 1787.

The congress of the United States possesses no power to regulate, or interfere with the domestic concerns, or police of any state: it belongs not to them to establish any rules respecting the rights of property; nor will the constitution permit any prohibition of arms to the people; or of peaceable assemblies by them, for any purposes whatsoever, and in any number, whenever they may see occasion. —ST. GEORGE TUCKER'S BLACKSTONE

If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government. — Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist (#28)

O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone; and you have no longer a democratical spirit. Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation, brought about by the punishment of those in power, inflicted by those who had no power at all? - patrick henry

As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms. — Tench Coxe in `Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution' under the Pseudonym "A Pennsylvanian" in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 col. 1.

The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed;... — Thomas Jefferson to Justice John Cartwright, 1824. ME 16:45.

That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of The United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms... — Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87

The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them. — Zachariah Johnson, 3 Elliot, Debates at 646

I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them. — George Mason, during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution (1788)

The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both. — William Rawle, A View of the Constitution 125-6 (2nd ed. 1829)

Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people. — Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

“The Constitution shall never be construed… to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” – Samuel Adams


All of these clearly indicate that the 2nd Amendment was written to remove even the slightest inclination of government to control the arms that belong to the people, as individuals. Not a standing army, which the founders mistrusted, and not the national guard which didn't even exist at that time.
 
Yes. So? You are ignoring the rest of the 2nd amendment again.
I am not the one with lousy reading comprehension.

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
 
you still speak without knowledge, or you continue to spread disinformation to eliminate the right of the people......

The right of the people to keep and bear arms has been recognized by the General Government; but the best security of that right after all is, the military spirit, that taste for martial exercises, which has always distinguished the free citizens of these States....Such men form the best barrier to the liberties of America — Gazette of the United States, October 14, 1789.

There are other things so clearly out of the power of Congress, that the bare recital of them is sufficient, I mean the "...rights of bearing arms for defence, or for killing game..." These things seem to have been inserted among their objections, merely to induce the ignorant to believe that Congress would have a power over such objects and to infer from their being refused a place in the Constitution, their intention to exercise that power to the oppression of the people. —ALEXANDER WHITE (1787)

And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms....The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. — Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William S. Smith in 1787.

The congress of the United States possesses no power to regulate, or interfere with the domestic concerns, or police of any state: it belongs not to them to establish any rules respecting the rights of property; nor will the constitution permit any prohibition of arms to the people; or of peaceable assemblies by them, for any purposes whatsoever, and in any number, whenever they may see occasion. —ST. GEORGE TUCKER'S BLACKSTONE

If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government. — Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist (#28)

O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone; and you have no longer a democratical spirit. Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation, brought about by the punishment of those in power, inflicted by those who had no power at all? - patrick henry

As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms. — Tench Coxe in `Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution' under the Pseudonym "A Pennsylvanian" in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 col. 1.

The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed;... — Thomas Jefferson to Justice John Cartwright, 1824. ME 16:45.

That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of The United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms... — Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87

The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them. — Zachariah Johnson, 3 Elliot, Debates at 646

I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them. — George Mason, during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution (1788)

The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both. — William Rawle, A View of the Constitution 125-6 (2nd ed. 1829)

Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people. — Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

“The Constitution shall never be construed… to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” – Samuel Adams


All of these clearly indicate that the 2nd Amendment was written to remove even the slightest inclination of government to control the arms that belong to the people, as individuals. Not a standing army, which the founders mistrusted, and not the national guard which didn't even exist at that time.
We have Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.
 
See what they say if you get caught with an operable machine gun and no ATF license (or ATF registration in some states).
Nothing. It is legal to own a machine gun and to even shoot it. No license required.
So, having a .50 BMG machine gin would be very expensive to shoot, especially in fully automatic.
It's doubtful "some yahoo" could afford to shoot it. Then, there's the cost ($12,000) of the gun.

Yes. it's an expensive gun. It is for sale in the States. You can own one.
 
I am not the one with lousy reading comprehension.

Yes you are. You are intentionally spewing misinformation as well. You are carefully attempting to manipulate the meaning of the 2nd amendment by discarding half of it. It is a semantics fallacy. It is discarding the Constitution. You are intentionally trying to equivocate two unrelated passages to discard the Constitution.

The 2nd amendment discusses two related rights, neither of which come from the Constitution, but it specifically prohibits government from interfering with them.

The right of a State to defend itself by forming militias.
The right of an individual to defend himself by keeping and bearing Arms.

Arms is ANY weapon, not just guns. ANY WEAPON.

The right of self defense does NOT come from a piece of paper. It is inherent simply because we are living things. Even an animal has the right to defend itself to the best of it's ability.
NO government can take that right away. Governments that try don't last long.

The 2nd amendment specifically prohibits federal, State, and local governments from infringing on that right in any way.

Every government has the right to defend itself.
Every individual has the right to defend himself.
Every animal has the right to defend itself.

Every time you idiots try to ban or limit guns, MORE guns get sold. Think about that. Do a LOT of navel gazing about the ramifications of that and what might happen if you try to take away guns. You don't want to go there.
 
We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.

Don't grab guns, grab gun lovers and Regulate them Well!

This statement is moronic. It should be, "don't grab guns from law abiding citizens. Grab guns from, and imprison, the criminals. :palm:
 
Nobody takes right-wingers seriously about economics or being legal to the law.

Projection
Projection is the process of displacing one’s feelings onto a different person, animal, or object. The term is most commonly used to describe defensive projection—attributing one’s own unacceptable urges to another. For example, if someone continuously bullies and ridicules a peer about his insecurities, the bully might be projecting his own struggle with self-esteem onto the other person.


half-wit
noun
\ ˈhaf-ˌwit , ˈhäf- \
: a foolish or stupid person
 
Your ignorance is showing. Are you on the right wing? Well regulated militia is a "technical" term.

I suggest you pay closer attention to the last part of that passage:

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

It does not say "right of militias" you incoherent, babbling buffoon. Good lord, you calling anyone stupid is the pinnacle of irony.
:palm:
 
Sure that is it. I suppose the fact that we had a citizen army back then mattered. The Brits attacked and destroyed our munition supplies. The logical reaction was to encourage people to keep weapons so we would be able to fight back. https://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/revolution/revwar-75.htm This is what the 2nd is about. That was 230 years ago. We have had millions of Americans shot and killed for something that is wrong in our society today.

WRONG. The second is about natural rights and preventing Government tyranny. Be less of a dumbass. :palm:
 
It5k-XUE1mz-J3.png
 
I suggest you pay closer attention to the last part of that passage:

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

It does not say "right of militias" you incoherent, babbling buffoon. Good lord, you calling anyone stupid is the pinnacle of irony.
:palm:
lol. You Ignorance is showing. It says well regulated militia of the people are necessary not the unorganized militia of the people.
 
Back
Top