2nd Amendment validation

[SmarterthanYou]

No. It means you are well trained. You are not a militia. Nordberg like usual is denying and discarding the Constitution of the United States and the constitutions of the various States.

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)

“A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …” – Richard Henry Lee

 

[Into the Night]

I ask, sir, what is the militia?

There is no single militia. There is no The Militia. There are many militias. A militia is an armed body of men organized into a single entity (an army).

It is the whole people.

No. Many people are not armed and do not choose to be, and they are not organized into an army. The people are not a militia. You are running under a misconception.

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)

He is correct.

“A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …” – Richard Henry Lee

Not quite right, although militias are made up of people.

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.

The 2nd amendment discusses TWO related rights, not one.

1) The right of a State to defend itself. It does this by organizing militias (an army). This is a necessary right of a free State.
2) The right of an individual to defend himself. He does this by keeping and bearing Arms (weapons)...ANY kind of weapon.

Neither shall be infringed.

 

[Nordberg]

Learn English dummy. Quit being dishonest. Quit denying and discarding the Constitution.

yep, still cheating. https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-2/ Now what are the very first words in the 2nd? Very first, therefore the most important.

 

[Nordberg]

There is no single militia. There is no The Militia. There are many militias. A militia is an armed body of men organized into a single entity (an army).

No. Many people are not armed and do not choose to be, and they are not organized into an army. The people are not a militia. You are running under a misconception.

He is correct.

Not quite right, although militias are made up of people.



The 2nd amendment discusses TWO related rights, not one.

1) The right of a State to defend itself. It does this by organizing militias (an army). This is a necessary right of a free State.
2) The right of an individual to defend himself. He does this by keeping and bearing Arms (weapons)...ANY kind of weapon.

Neither shall be infringed.

Wrong again. When the constitution was written, there was a militia. We had citizen-soldiers fighting off the Brits. That is why we had a second. not so you can spray a school with bullets.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Wrong again. When the constitution was written, there was a militia. We had citizen-soldiers fighting off the Brits. That is why we had a second. not so you can spray a school with bullets.

hyperbolic idiocy.............on your part............it is the absolute height of stupidity to believe that the framers would guarantee the right of the military/militia to have firearms after they'd just won a war for independence from a government/military that tried to take their firearms..........STUPIDITY!!!!!!!!!!

there are LITERALLY over a dozen pieces of historical documentation that backs up the framers believing in the right of an individual to keep and bear their own arms...........yet ZERO historical evidence that claims that only the military/government has that right...........

 

[Nordberg]

hyperbolic idiocy.............on your part............it is the absolute height of stupidity to believe that the framers would guarantee the right of the military/militia to have firearms after they'd just won a war for independence from a government/military that tried to take their firearms..........STUPIDITY!!!!!!!!!!

there are LITERALLY over a dozen pieces of historical documentation that backs up the framers believing in the right of an individual to keep and bear their own arms...........yet ZERO historical evidence that claims that only the military/government has that right...........

That is exactly what they were doing. We had guns and gunpowder storage sites that were blown up by the Brits. So we decided to keep weapons in the hands of the people. We learned. However now we need to stop it.
As I pointed out. the wll regulated militia are the first words of the 2nd. It was not an afterthought. It was the point.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

That is exactly what they were doing. We had guns and gunpowder storage sites that were blown up by the Brits. So we decided to keep weapons in the hands of the people. We learned. However now we need to stop it.
As I pointed out. the wll regulated militia are the first words of the 2nd. It was not an afterthought. It was the point.

idiocy. you cannot possibly believe that after their military tried to take their arms and powder, that the framers would guarantee ONLY the right of their new government to have arms and powder............complete fucking lunacy

 

[Nordberg]

hyperbolic idiocy.............on your part............it is the absolute height of stupidity to believe that the framers would guarantee the right of the military/militia to have firearms after they'd just won a war for independence from a government/military that tried to take their firearms..........STUPIDITY!!!!!!!!!!

there are LITERALLY over a dozen pieces of historical documentation that backs up the framers believing in the right of an individual to keep and bear their own arms...........yet ZERO historical evidence that claims that only the military/government has that right...........

They won no such war. It was still going on. Read about the War of 1812 when the Brits burned down the Whitehouse. The Brits did not concede that victory. It continued.

 

[zymurgy]

Argument of the stone fallacy. Insult fallacy. No argument presented.

head up your ass fallacy - you can't even possess the radioactive material required to try to build a nuke

arguing with you is like talking to a kid at recess. your world views are comical - absurd, and a waste of time to debate.

 

[Into the Night]

yep, still cheating. https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-2/ Now what are the very first words in the 2nd? Very first, therefore the most important.

The 2nd amendment is more than one word long, dummy.

 

[Into the Night]

Wrong again. When the constitution was written, there was a militia. We had citizen-soldiers fighting off the Brits. That is why we had a second. not so you can spray a school with bullets.

There are still militias. You are still trying to discard the Constitution.

 

[Into the Night]

hyperbolic idiocy.............on your part............it is the absolute height of stupidity to believe that the framers would guarantee the right of the military/militia to have firearms after they'd just won a war for independence from a government/military that tried to take their firearms..........STUPIDITY!!!!!!!!!!

there are LITERALLY over a dozen pieces of historical documentation that backs up the framers believing in the right of an individual to keep and bear their own arms...........yet ZERO historical evidence that claims that only the military/government has that right...........

There is also, of course, the Constitution itself, as well as most State constitutions, which also clearly refer to people keeping and bearing Arms.

 

[Into the Night]

They won no such war. It was still going on. Read about the War of 1812 when the Brits burned down the Whitehouse. The Brits did not concede that victory. It continued.

The Brits lost (twice!), dude. We won both of those wars.

 

[Into the Night]

head up your ass fallacy - you can't even possess the radioactive material required to try to build a nuke

arguing with you is like talking to a kid at recess. your world views are comical - absurd, and a waste of time to debate.

Sure you can. It is legal to possess uranium, plutonium, or any other material. It is legal to own a nuke.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

They won no such war. It was still going on. Read about the War of 1812 when the Brits burned down the Whitehouse. The Brits did not concede that victory. It continued.

so you're saying that the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights is illegitimate because the war was never over.................got it.

 

[Nordberg]

The Brits lost (twice!), dude. We won both of those wars.

Can you really not understand the basics of the discussion? The problem was the Brits kept coming and we relied on citizen soldiers, who should have guns as part of a well-regulated militia. They were our army. If the Brits came back, they had to be armed and trained.
It is not about who won, but how. The people, who were the army, needed to have muskets and training. That is why they said well regulated.

 

[Nordberg]

so you're saying that the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights is illegitimate because the war was never over.................got it.

Don't say got it. You assuredly do not got it. That was never said.

 

[zymurgy]

Sure you can. It is legal to possess uranium, plutonium, or any other material. It is legal to own a nuke.

not weapons grade cocoa puffs

 

[Into the Night]

Can you really not understand the basics of the discussion?

Apparently you can't. YOU brought it up!

The problem was the Brits kept coming and we relied on citizen soldiers, who should have guns as part of a well-regulated militia. They were our army. If the Brits came back, they had to be armed and trained.

So?

It is not about who won, but how. The people, who were the army, needed to have muskets and training. That is why they said well regulated.

So?

 

[Into the Night]

Don't say got it. You assuredly do not got it. That was never said.

Yes it was. By you.