2nd Amendment Conversation from the Defund thread

[RB 60]

Poor lizard....Not funny.

 

[danielpalos]

^Another perfect example of why one cannot debate a dishonest leftist dumbass.

Simply because a right-winger says so? You need to be Right, not merely on the right-wing.

 

[danielpalos]

WRONG. But then, you are an uneducated, boorish, low IQ dumbass on steroids whose arguments are tantamount to "because you say so."

dumb
adjective
\ ˈdəm \
1a: lacking intelligence : STUPID
b: showing a lack of intelligence
c: requiring no intelligence
d: not having the capability to process data

Trying to privatize prisons is not a solution.

 

[Truth Detector]

We have a Second Amendment. Why do we have security problems in our free States?

That's a lie filled strawman douchebag. We have crime problems in Democratically controlled urban shit holes with very strict gun laws. Why do you think that is douchebag?

 

[Truth Detector]

Simply because a right-winger says so? You need to be Right, not merely on the right-wing.

That's rather ironic coming from a dishonest, lying partisan hack who avoids the truth and facts.

 

[Truth Detector]

Trying to privatize prisons is not a solution.

Trolling your own thread now? A perfect illustration of how badly you have lost the argument.

But hey, I'm all for trolling dumb threads like this; why are private prisons a bad idea?

 

[danielpalos]

That's a lie filled strawman douchebag. We have crime problems in Democratically controlled urban shit holes with very strict gun laws. Why do you think that is douchebag?

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.

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.

I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

Don't grab guns, grab gun lovers and Regulate the Well until we have no security problems in our free States.

 

[Into the Night]

When a dumb post is needed, you will supply it. Those are Washington's views. He recognized we had a citizen army that was fighting for our country. There was no standing army. As a general, he emphasized a regulated and trained militia. That is all obsolete now and should be changed. We have a hoooge army, a bigly one.

You don't get to speak for the dead. You only get to speak for you.

Militias are not obsolete. They are how a State can defend itself. A State has the right of self defense. So does the national government. It also has a militia, called the National Guard. The Washington State militia currently has 75 members (administrative staff for now), since it is not on active status.
People also have the right to defend themselves. They can keep and bear Arms.

That means a weapon. ANY KIND OF WEAPON.

There is no specification or limit specified anywhere in the Constitution about the cost, size, type of action (if a gun), size of magazine (if a gun), size of a quiver, whether it's black and scary looking, number of weapons, accessory to any weapon, etc. There is NO LIMIT.

There was a standing army. Actually, two of them (or you wouldn't have a war between them!). The Patriot army (it was a standing army) and the British army (or the British Regulars, as most of them were called).
Define 'hoooge' and 'bigly'.

A standing army is normal and constitutional. The funding for such cannot exceed two years.

 

[Into the Night]

You making up right-wing fantasy doesn't make it true. Show us the Individual and Singular terms in our Second Article of Amendment. There is no appeal to ignorance of the law.

Already did. RQAA. Asking the question over and over mindlessly doesn't make the answer I gave you go away.

 

[Into the Night]

That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

There is no 'therefore' in the 2nd amendment. You don't get to change the 2nd amendment.

 

[Into the Night]

Is reading comprehension not a right-wing forte?

Evasion. Answer the question put to you:
What is their job concerning the 2nd amendment?

 

[Nordberg]

You don't get to speak for the dead. You only get to speak for you.

Militias are not obsolete. They are how a State can defend itself. A State has the right of self defense. So does the national government. It also has a militia, called the National Guard. The Washington State militia currently has 75 members (administrative staff for now), since it is not on active status.
People also have the right to defend themselves. They can keep and bear Arms.

That means a weapon. ANY KIND OF WEAPON.

There is no specification or limit specified anywhere in the Constitution about the cost, size, type of action (if a gun), size of magazine (if a gun), size of a quiver, whether it's black and scary looking, number of weapons, accessory to any weapon, etc. There is NO LIMIT.

There was a standing army. Actually, two of them (or you wouldn't have a war between them!). The Patriot army (it was a standing army) and the British army (or the British Regulars, as most of them were called).
Define 'hoooge' and 'bigly'.

A standing army is normal and constitutional. The funding for such cannot exceed two years.

Stop that insane posting. That is exactly what Scalia said he was doing. Sure the people should have rocket launchers and nukes. Do you think before you post? If so, it does not show. The Supreme Court has allowed control over weapons in the past. You know nothing.

 

[Into the Night]

No, I couldn't. Only someone with lousy reading comprehension can do that.

Evasion. Answer the question put to you:
What is their job concerning the 2nd amendment?

 

[Into the Night]

My state has a constitution too.

Article I, Section 21 of the Pennsylvania State Constitution states: "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."

So, what does the legislature have to say about that? It looks clearly defined, no?

Article I, Section 24 of the Washington State Constitution states: "The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.".

 

[Into the Night]

You merely claiming that is an ad hominem not a valid argument.

Your lousy reading comprehension is apparent by your refusing to rebute this actual State law and legal equivalent in any given and several State of our Union:

Still can't decipher the difference between 'people' and 'militia'. Sad.

 

[Into the Night]

Your ignorance is showing, like usual.

I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

The militia is an army organized by a State to defend itself, or by the federal government to defend itself.
The word is Latin in origin, and means a 'system of military discipline'...or an army. The word first appeared in 1580, as far as any recorded history goes.

A militia of a State is made up from people living in that State. It does NOT include everyone in that State, but only the organized army.
A militia of a nation is made up from people living in that nation. It does NOT include everyone in that nation, but only the organized army.

A government has the right to defend itself. It uses militias (armies) to do that.
An individual has the right to defend himself. He uses Arms to do that. That means a weapon. ANY KIND OF WEAPON.
Even an animal has the right to defend itself. It uses every means at it's disposal to do so. Sometimes, that even involves a WEAPON, such as throwing or dropping rocks, or stabbing or clubbing with a stick.

The fact that you don't get this simple principle and how these rights are discussed in the Constitution of the United States and various State constitutions, shows only your willingness to discard these documents, but also you willingness to not recognize inherent rights. You can't take these away, no matter what you do.

 

[Into the Night]

I agree to disagree. Right-wingers don't understand that being "hard on crime" IS socialism on a national or international basis.

No, it isn't. Socialism is sharing of wealth by force. It has three major forms: communism, fascism, and slavery.
Socialism is theft. It is an economic system. It has nothing to do with crime or crime rates (other than the theft inherent in socialism).

Being hard on crime is simply enforcing the law.

 

[Geeko Sportivo]

Poor lizard....Not funny.

What is funny is you don't see the humor in the cartoon! COLD DEAD HANDS! GET IT! HA HA HA HA!

 

[Into the Night]

So we should let sexual perverts who have child porn on their computers run free? I agree to disagree...

Disgusting a behavior that this is, how are you going to stop it?
A computer is private files.

Now...TRANSMITTING such porn across public wire is something you CAN monitor and do something about.

 

[Into the Night]

Trying to privatize prisons is not a solution.

Not a solution to what?? The Problem was never stated.