Democrats Should Ditch the Anti-Gun Rhetoric

[Into the Night]

Amazing, in the two hundred plus years we have existed as a country no one or entity has ever defined what the Founders meant by the term "militia," but suddenly now you know what they were thinking when they purposely worded the Amendment that way?

A militia is a body of armed men.

A State has the right to organize a militia. It is a necessary right of a free State.

Obviously, you have difficulty with English.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Amazing, in the two hundred plus years we have existed as a country no one or entity has ever defined what the Founders meant by the term "militia," but suddenly now you know what they were thinking when they purposely worded the Amendment that way?

that is incorrect. several of the founding fathers have defined what the 'militia' is......on top of that, several commentaries introduced to the colonists defined the 2nd Amendment. These things have been copied and pasted on here dozens of times. have you ignored or forgotten those?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Not quite. The 2nd amendment is talking about militias organized by States, and are a necessary right of a free State. The unorganized 'militia' that you are referring to here is not mentioned in the 2nd amendment.

The Dick Act, which provides a separation of organized and unorganized militia, is unconstitutional on its face. that is why I categorically ignore talk about organized and unorganized militias

 

[archives]

Yes there is. The militia being referred to here is the right of a State to defend itself using a militia. It is not a prefatory clause. The 2nd amendment talks about two related rights.

1) The right of a State to defend itself.
2) The right of an individual to defend himself (do you know what 'people' means??).

One is not a condition of the other.

Neither the right of a State to organize a militia, nor the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall be infringed.
Both of these clauses is talking about self defense.

Not true, the prefatory clause, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," is the lead in purpose for the operative clause. and it is the operative clause that connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms," you wouldn't have one without the other. If it was just to carry guns the Founders would have left it at "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" as they did the earlier listed rights

And the term "militia" has never been definitively explained, even Scalia gave up on it, if it is the definition you would like to think that it is, the again, States have their own established militias and there is no need for a citizen army least of all one made up of Barney Fifes

 

[Into the Night]

We're really going off the boat now, show us how an individual owning a gun has "everything" to do with the defense of the country

RQAA.

Why do you think everyone out there is threatening your life?

False dichotomy fallacy. He never said there was.

What is this urgent need to carry a gun around with you inorder to just go about your daily activities?

He can carry his gun around for any reason. See the 2nd amendment. Figure out what 'self defense' means.

Have you been attacked by another with a gun?

Not yet. Came close a couple of times. They turned and walked the other way when they saw I had a gun.

Do you think every other guy on the street is going to assault you if you don't have your gun?

Extreme argument fallacy. It only takes one guy. You don't know where. You don't know when.

Nothing personal, but it is bizarre and dangerous thinking

A comment on his personal thinking. Paradox.

You don't get to decide who can carry a gun or when. You are not the king.

 

[Into the Night]

that is incorrect. several of the founding fathers have defined what the 'militia' is......on top of that, several commentaries introduced to the colonists defined the 2nd Amendment. These things have been copied and pasted on here dozens of times. have you ignored or forgotten those?

A militia is just a body of armed men.

It can be unorganized, in other words, it can be the general population, or it can be organized, such as what a State would do to organize a militia to defend itself.

 

[Into the Night]

Amazing, in the two hundred plus years we have existed as a country no one or entity has ever defined what the Founders meant by the term "militia," but suddenly now you know what they were thinking when they purposely worded the Amendment that way?

I realize you don't understand English.

'Militia' is simply a body of armed men.

 

[archives]

because WE are the militia. WE are the rulers of this nation. WE must always be in power. the founders had too much experience with being ruled over, so they created a nation where WE were the power.



I have been confronted by someone with a gun, and if you don't go around every day with the situational awareness that there MIGHT be someone out there willing to take something from you by force, then you're just being naive and ignorant.
YOU consider it bizarre and dangerous, but we see examples EVERY DAY of people who think like you, that nobody wants to do you harm, but they end up robbed, beaten, raped, or murdered..........now, if you are ok taking that chance, fine......but it does not give you the right to force that weakness on others

If we are the militia what in the hell do each of the States have their own militias for? Do you actually think those "freedom militias" living out in the woods are actually going to be effective against anyone?

And you are showing signs of paranoia, I have always lived in one of those areas you would refer to as dangerous and I have never been assaulted or threatened beyond anything I couldn't deal with myself least of all needing a gun for protection

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Not true, the prefatory clause, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," is the lead in purpose for the operative clause. and it is the operative clause that connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms," you wouldn't have one without the other.

that is incorrect. not one single founder ever made a comment even close to that

If it was just to carry guns the Founders would have left it at "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" as they did the earlier listed rights

It literally says 'the right of the people'. It does not say 'the right of the militia'

And the term "militia" has never been definitively explained, even Scalia gave up on it, if it is the definition you would like to think that it is, the again, States have their own established militias and there is no need for a citizen army least of all one made up of Barney Fifes

Scalia ignored it because to enter the founders comments on it would destroy his argument about 'long standing prohibitions'...........the states are not allowed to keep troops without the permission of congress. In order to maintain the security of a FREE state, the people must at all times be armed..........every founding father knew this, there are many commentaries on it........this is the Amendment that was ratified.

"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)

“I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.” – George Mason

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

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.

 

[Into the Night]

The Dick Act, which provides a separation of organized and unorganized militia, is unconstitutional on its face. that is why I categorically ignore talk about organized and unorganized militias

It is completely constitutional. The federal government ALSO has the right to form a militia. They tend to call theirs the National Guard.

Just as States have the right to organize a militia to defend itself, the federal government does too. This is also an inherent right, simply because they are governmental organizations representing a body of people.

The unorganized militia cannot be banned. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Nothing about the Dick Act is unconstitutional.

 

[archives]

I realize you don't understand English.

'Militia' is simply a body of armed men.

Technically, you may be correct, but I don't think the Founders purposely included it cause they were just simply thinking of any body of armed men

And again, you ignored the question, if the Founders meant everyone had a right to own a gun why did they go thru the effort and just not stated it as "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

 

[archives]

RQAA.

False dichotomy fallacy. He never said there was.

He can carry his gun around for any reason. See the 2nd amendment. Figure out what 'self defense' means.

Not yet. Came close a couple of times. They turned and walked the other way when they saw I had a gun.

Extreme argument fallacy. It only takes one guy. You don't know where. You don't know when.

A comment on his personal thinking. Paradox.

You don't get to decide who can carry a gun or when. You are not the king.

Nah. I ain't responding to that bullshit, if you can't exchange in full thoughts don't waste my time, I left high school a long time ago

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Yeah, we are against kids being gunned down in schools. Can you imagine that? Very few talk about taking guns away. The NRA was for gun registration for many years until they became lobbyists for the gun manufacturers.

Me too. Why don't you do something about all the mental wackadoodles wandering the streets of America?

Bullshit. Every fucking Democratic wannabe President has an anti-gun agenda. Mostly making Bill Clinton's gun ban permanent.

Some questions I'd like Democrats to answer before I agree to gun control:

1) How many suicide deaths do you think will be saved by banning semi-automatic, magazine-fed rifles in America? How many murders?

2) Same questioning but with handguns.

3) If there's a major difference in the numbers, then please explain the logic in banning some guns over others as in Clinton's Ban?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

It is completely constitutional. The federal government ALSO has the right to form a militia. They tend to call theirs the National Guard.

Just as States have the right to organize a militia to defend itself, the federal government does too. This is also an inherent right, simply because they are governmental organizations representing a body of people.

The unorganized militia cannot be banned. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Nothing about the Dick Act is unconstitutional.

the states are constitutionally prohibited from keeping their own troops without the consent of congress..........

 

[Into the Night]

Not true, the prefatory clause, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," is the lead in purpose for the operative clause. and it is the operative clause that connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms," you wouldn't have one without the other. If it was just to carry guns the Founders would have left it at "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" as they did the earlier listed rights

And the term "militia" has never been definitively explained, even Scalia gave up on it, if it is the definition you would like to think that it is, the again, States have their own established militias and there is no need for a citizen army least of all one made up of Barney Fifes

You seem to have real trouble with English.

That clause is not a condition of the 2nd clause. The 2nd amendment discusses two related rights:

1) The right of a State to defend itself.
2) The right of an individual to defend himself (do you know what 'people' means??).

The Supreme Court does not have authority to change or interpret the Constitution. See Article III.

 

[archives]

that is incorrect. not one single founder ever made a comment even close to that


It literally says 'the right of the people'. It does not say 'the right of the militia'

Scalia ignored it because to enter the founders comments on it would destroy his argument about 'long standing prohibitions'...........the states are not allowed to keep troops without the permission of congress. In order to maintain the security of a FREE state, the people must at all times be armed..........every founding father knew this, there are many commentaries on it........this is the Amendment that was ratified.

"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)

“I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.” – George Mason

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

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.

But they purposely wrote it that way, and the right of the people is based upon the understanding of what a militia is, which no one has been able to do in the history of the country

And forget about the quotes, not difficult to cherry pick quotes from Founding Fathers to imply just about anything one wants

 

[Into the Night]

If we are the militia what in the hell do each of the States have their own militias for?

It is their right to organize a militia. See the 2nd amendment. This right is inherent.

Do you actually think those "freedom militias" living out in the woods are actually going to be effective against anyone?

Again, you fail to grasp English.

A militia is a body of armed men. The unorganized militia cannot be banned. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is inherent.

And you are showing signs of paranoia, I have always lived in one of those areas you would refer to as dangerous and I have never been assaulted or threatened beyond anything I couldn't deal with myself least of all needing a gun for protection

Bully for you. Others are not so lucky.

If you don't want to carry a gun, that's your choice. You do NOT have the right to dictate who else can carry a gun or when. You are not the king.

 

[Into the Night]

Technically, you may be correct, but I don't think the Founders purposely included it cause they were just simply thinking of any body of armed men

There is no 'technically'. A militia is a body of armed men.

You don't get to speak for the dead. Omniscience fallacy.

And again, you ignored the question, if the Founders meant everyone had a right to own a gun why did they go thru the effort and just not stated it as "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

They did. See the 2nd amendment. They also noted that the right of a free State to organize a militia.

 

[Into the Night]

Nah. I ain't responding to that bullshit, if you can't exchange in full thoughts don't waste my time, I left high school a long time ago

Denial of the Constitution of the United States. Argument of the stone fallacy.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

IMA PARANOID SCHIZO SPLIT INTO MY ID, EGO AND SUPEREGO PLUS SOMETHING I DON'T UNDERSTAND

Nah. I ain't responding to that bullshit, if you can't exchange in full thoughts don't waste my time, I left high school a long time ago

It's a complete fucking waste of everyone's time which is why I have no problem fucking with Sybil just as much as he fucks with everyone else. The fact he's literally insane (paranoid schizophrenia) is not an excuse to stop taking his meds and fucking with people with his nonsense.