Democrats Should Ditch the Anti-Gun Rhetoric

[archives]

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.

Already been there, done that, and you have offered nothing to invalidate what I posted, and if the SCOTUS didn't have the authority to interpret the Constitution how in the hell does the United States have a military draft? How did Jefferson purchase Louisiana? Why do we have taxes of any kind? How can the Federal Gov't regulate Interstate Commerce? How can anything Congress passes ever be in violation of the Constitution? etc, etc, etc.

Got a feeling I am going to see another copy and paste off of the Google list of fallacies

 

[SmarterthanYou]

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

let me see if I have you correct.......you want to see definitions of what the founders meant by 'militia', but when I give you quotes on what they meant the militia is, you want to call them cherry picked and ignore them...............

so basically you want to believe that the founding fathers would write an amendment that guaranteed ONLY the right of government troops to have firearms, after they had just won their independence from a government that tried to confiscate their firearms........right?

 

[Into the Night]

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

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

A State has the right to organize a militia to defend itself.
It must disband that militia in time of peace.

If a State is invaded, it has the right to defend itself.
If a State is in any other danger as will not admit delay, it has the right to defend itself.

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 has the right to organize a militia to do so.

 

[archives]

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

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



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

Oh, oh, didn't know my two neighbors who hunt together every year was a militia, should I give them a name? Are the gangbangers of Chicago a militia? How about the women taking gun safely courses at the local range, a militia?

As I said, technically, but not realistically

 

[SmarterthanYou]

A State has the right to organize a militia to defend itself.
It must disband that militia in time of peace.

If a State is invaded, it has the right to defend itself.
If a State is in any other danger as will not admit delay, it has the right to defend itself.

and we're left quibbling about the differences between organized and unorganized............I don't see a benefit for either of us in this.........we both know what it means and what it allows.

 

[Into the Night]

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

Try learning English. Discarding the Constitution of the United States. Fallacy fallacy.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

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"

Sorry, dude, but this goes back to the basic premise of "Does the Constitution give us our rights or do they only try to limit our natural ones?"

Your answer seems to be that the Federal government gives us our rights and that's incorrect. It's their duty to protect our rights, not take them away.

So what's the real problem with guns? We're the world's richest, most powerful nation but are giving it up so some people can be super rich while the country slowly degrades with failing infrastructure, great numbers of poorly educated children who become poorly educated adults and among the world's worst mental health care systems in the First World.

Yet, according to the Democrats the problem is a scary-looking gun. Sorry but I disagree. As noted above , 2/3s of all "gun deaths" are suicides. One shot from a pistol. Now tell me how banning AR-15s fixes that problem?

https://www.mhanational.org/issues/ranking-states

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2016-09-14/the-10-most-depressed-countries
India, China and the U.S. are also the countries most affected by anxiety, schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, according to WHO.

About one in five adults in the U.S. experiences some form of mental illness each year, according to the National Alliance on Mental Illness, but only 41 percent of those affected received mental health care or services in the past year.

 

[Stringfellow Hawk]

Banning scary-looking guns is bullshit. The AR-15 is waaaay down the list of guns used to kill people.

The most common gun is a handgun. 2/3s of all gun deaths are suicides and most of them are done with one shot from a pistol.

.22 used to be the number 1 round used to kil in domestic cases

 

[Into the Night]

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.

Lying via manufactured quote. Psychoquackery. Speaking to fictional character hallucination. Slander. Trolling. Spam. No argument presented.

 

[Into the Night]

Already been there, done that, and you have offered nothing to invalidate what I posted, and if the SCOTUS didn't have the authority to interpret the Constitution how in the hell does the United States have a military draft? How did Jefferson purchase Louisiana? Why do we have taxes of any kind? How can the Federal Gov't regulate Interstate Commerce? How can anything Congress passes ever be in violation of the Constitution? etc, etc, etc.

Got a feeling I am going to see another copy and paste off of the Google list of fallacies

Your problem. Stop making fallacies.

Argument of the stone fallacy. Pivot fallacies.

None of these are the Constitution.

 

[Into the Night]

let me see if I have you correct.......you want to see definitions of what the founders meant by 'militia', but when I give you quotes on what they meant the militia is, you want to call them cherry picked and ignore them...............

so basically you want to believe that the founding fathers would write an amendment that guaranteed ONLY the right of government troops to have firearms, after they had just won their independence from a government that tried to confiscate their firearms........right?

He doesn't seem to grasp this simple bit of logic.

 

[Into the Night]

Oh, oh, didn't know my two neighbors who hunt together every year was a militia,

They are.

should I give them a name?

If you want to.

Are the gangbangers of Chicago a militia?

They are.

How about the women taking gun safely courses at the local range, a militia?

She is part of a militia.

As I said, technically, but not realistically

Semantics fallacy. Go learn English.

 

[Into the Night]

.22 used to be the number 1 round used to kil in domestic cases

It's certainly a popular round. People underestimate that little .22!

 

[archives]

let me see if I have you correct.......you want to see definitions of what the founders meant by 'militia', but when I give you quotes on what they meant the militia is, you want to call them cherry picked and ignore them...............

so basically you want to believe that the founding fathers would write an amendment that guaranteed ONLY the right of government troops to have firearms, after they had just won their independence from a government that tried to confiscate their firearms........right?

You don't, as I noted, quoting phrases from Founding Fathers is not difficult, the guys wrote endlessly, for example, Hamilton in Federalist #29 "the attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate extent, upon such principles as will really fit them for service in case of need. By thus it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it." Hardly spells out your understanding of what "militia" means especially as it relates to private ownership of guns

I don't want you to believe anything, I am just saying that until one can reach a definitive understanding of what they meant my militia, the Second Amendment, due to the purpose of the prefatory clause, doesn't automatically mean one has the right to possess a gun as the gun defenders present it

And let me ask you the question that the other one here keeps avoiding, if the Founders meant that everyone should have the right to posses a gun why didn't they just author the Amendment in simple terms as they did the other rights by recording "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed?"

 

[archives]

Your problem. Stop making fallacies.

Argument of the stone fallacy. Pivot fallacies.

None of these are the Constitution.

Bam, did I call that, "got a feeling I am going to see another copy and paste off of the Google list of fallacies, as noted earlier, and proven again here, when "nightingale" can't refute what others have offered out comes the Google glossary of fallacies, too funny

 

[archives]

Sorry, dude, but this goes back to the basic premise of "Does the Constitution give us our rights or do they only try to limit our natural ones?"

Your answer seems to be that the Federal government gives us our rights and that's incorrect. It's their duty to protect our rights, not take them away.

So what's the real problem with guns? We're the world's richest, most powerful nation but are giving it up so some people can be super rich while the country slowly degrades with failing infrastructure, great numbers of poorly educated children who become poorly educated adults and among the world's worst mental health care systems in the First World.

Yet, according to the Democrats the problem is a scary-looking gun. Sorry but I disagree. As noted above , 2/3s of all "gun deaths" are suicides. One shot from a pistol. Now tell me how banning AR-15s fixes that problem?

https://www.mhanational.org/issues/ranking-states

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2016-09-14/the-10-most-depressed-countries
India, China and the U.S. are also the countries most affected by anxiety, schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, according to WHO.

About one in five adults in the U.S. experiences some form of mental illness each year, according to the National Alliance on Mental Illness, but only 41 percent of those affected received mental health care or services in the past year.

Oh no, another "right" to own a gun is a God given natural right, seen it three times already

Simple fact, all rights are based upon reason, not desire, otherwise all would be anarchy

 

[SmarterthanYou]

You don't, as I noted, quoting phrases from Founding Fathers is not difficult, the guys wrote endlessly, for example, Hamilton in Federalist #29 "the attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate extent, upon such principles as will really fit them for service in case of need. By thus it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it." Hardly spells out your understanding of what "militia" means especially as it relates to private ownership of guns

and this is where you refuse to understand the founders. the majority of the founders feared standing armies, because their experience showed that standing armies were banes to liberty. Hamilton knew that this new nation needed a standing army. You will notice that Hamilton did not refer to this standing army as the militia............

I don't want you to believe anything, I am just saying that until one can reach a definitive understanding of what they meant my militia, the Second Amendment, due to the purpose of the prefatory clause, doesn't automatically mean one has the right to possess a gun as the gun defenders present it

Until you decide to objectively understand the founders ideas and meanings, your outlook will always be colored by your prejudices and fears.......

And let me ask you the question that the other one here keeps avoiding, if the Founders meant that everyone should have the right to posses a gun why didn't they just author the Amendment in simple terms as they did the other rights by recording "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed?"

The 2nd Amendment was written AFTER the Constitution.......and the Bill of Rights offered as a compromise to the anti federalists, those who completely mistrusted government........Now, I would offer up more quotes from the founders on their accepted definition of the 2nd, but you would just ignore them as cherry picked.

so you believe what you need to believe, as wrong as it is, and we will continue to expose the bullshit that your ideas about it are.

I do have a question...........is there any body of government that you trust enough to give a definitive meaning to the 2nd Amendment........and not the SCOTUS since you seem to not agree with them, despite the fact that you say it is the only entity that interprets the constitution.........

would you accept something from the US Senate?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Oh no, another "right" to own a gun is a God given natural right, seen it three times already

Simple fact, all rights are based upon reason, not desire, otherwise all would be anarchy

this shows that you have a serious lack of knowledge about what the founders believed about rights..........

 

[Dutch Uncle]

strawman. and listening to alot of you about 'active shooter' when you 'say' you've watched the video, tells me that it's not about what you actually see, just what you want to believe....

Call it whatever you like but anyone who is witnessed shooting two unarmed men looks like an active shooter to me.

A sniper would have been righteous to put a round through his chest or Grosskreutz empty his magazine into Kyle's back.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Oh no, another "right" to own a gun is a God given natural right, seen it three times already

Simple fact, all rights are based upon reason, not desire, otherwise all would be anarchy

Are you saying there are no natural rights and that you only have the rights given to you by the State?

You're wrong. Laws are based on reason. Rights are based on our natural right as human beings.