It's wrong because it's not the liberal position ...
How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment
- Thread starter christiefan915
- Start date
It's wrong because it's not the liberal position ...
Parents can be selfish and stupid and can make butt stupid decisions. Those decisions on average far, far exceed on average the central decisions made by the Imperial Federal Government.
That other people don't have a perfect solution is irrelevant in a discussion with you since you don't have a perfect answer either.
christiefan915
Catalyst
I'm not sure who you think I am, but I've never used another screen name. you know you can look at my user name history in my profile...
christiefan915
Catalyst
Individuals can disagree with 2nd amendment and do, individuals will always find things to disagree about, an irrelevant point at best....
....but, the 2nd stands now as it stood for those 2 centuries....the peoples right to bear arms shall not be infringed....
So it still means the same thing now as it did 225 years ago.....and that is the Conservative, Republican, and NRA position....so just WHO is trying trying to rewrite it....
certainly not those of us that agree with it and its interpretation....so the op is a lie from the get go.
Lefties just keep moving the goal posts all over the field to derail the issue.
christiefan915
Catalyst
I posted another opinion for you to think about and all you can respond with is insults, not that I'm surprised. How do you explain the different interpretations from the gun lovers on this thread? You're trying to reduce it to the lowest common denominator.
Reading comprehension not your thing, tootsie ?
YOU SAY.........."people still make up the militia, you stupe"
MY POST SAID "In 1791, THE PEOPLE made up the militia....as it was then, it is today....we the people are still 'the militia'"
Read it slowly so it sinks in....
YOU SAY..." But, they have to be WELL REGULATED in order to be considered a militia."
The 2nd SAYS...."A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state"
So....does it say it has to been well regulated in order to be considered a militia....I don't think so....
It does say, a well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state.....thats different...
It continues, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
It doesn't say they have to be a militia...or organized, or defending the state at all....WE ARE THE PEOPLE....
Get it, stupe
How do you explain the different interpretations from the gun lovers on this thread? You're trying to reduce it to the lowest common denominator.
I don't explain it....I don't claim to be a psychoanalyst either....Its like hearing the eye witness accounts of the WTC attack....some people saw fighters hit the building, some
saw non-passenger jets, some saw four engines planes, some saw missiles....yet they all saw the same event.....
Its why we rely on things like the SCOTUS, to do the interpretations for us...or else there would be no agreement on anything.
christiefan915
Catalyst
Kudos bravs. That's the answer I was hoping to get.
Yeah sure, those jackwagons will not acknowledge what SCOTUS has said.
The simple fact that the right to arms is not granted / given / created or otherwise established by the 2nd Amendment renders all their inventive readings of the 2nd Amendment into ignorant leftist wishful thinking.
The fundamental gun rights position has not changed . . . OTOH, the gun control position has evolved multiple times and what is argued for nowadays is a mere shell of the original "militia right" and "state's right" interpretations which had their genesis in the federal courts in 1942*. That those interpretations are now invalid is incontrovertible and it means that dozens of lower federal court decisions and hundreds of state court decisions rendered since 1942, upholding / sustaining unconstitutional gun laws, HAVE NO LEGAL FOUNDATION.
It's funny really, some anti-gunner's like Taichiliberal haven't kept up on the mutations and legal developments are still arguing crap that was abandoned by the anti's back in the 90's.
Even funnier is that apparently Taichiliberal is unaware that SCOTUS is in total agreement on whether the 2nd secures a collective or individual right . . . The Heller Court recognized that it is no longer in question; the Court was 9-0 saying that the right secured by the 2nd Amendment is individual.
* Cases v. U.S, 131 F.2d 916 (1 st Cir. 1942) which created the "militia right" interpretation in the federal courts.
U.S. v. Tot, 131 F.2d 261 (3 rd Cir. 1942) which created the "state's right" interpretation in the federal courts.
My arrogance is at least warranted and earned by having my arguments solidified over 35 years of study and honed and refined with 20+ years of debating gun rights vs gun control and the Constitution in general. It is warranted because I possess critical thinking skills and intellectual integrity.
Your arrogance is an empty vessel with nothing but Wikipedia, Thinkprogress and DailyKos "scholarship" molding your arguments and as we will see, you have zero intellectual integrity and critical thinking is only applied when you need to weasel out of sticky situations.
Bullshit.
You recognized from the first sentence of your OP that your copy-n-paste is, "sure to inflame gun lovers".
That was your primary intent in posting this article.
You expected and wanted a strong response from "gun lovers" that would be comprised mostly of inflammatory (as opposed to reasoned) comments so you could whine and cry about mean gun lovers.
This is proven by your second post, 23 hours and 37 replies after your OP, declaring "Thread success!" because there was "No addressing the salient points, just defaulting to insult."
Interestingly (and inexplicably, given what you claim -NOW- was your intent) you complain about not reading "salient points" and in your posts that followed, in quick succession, you continued to deride gun lovers for their lack of reasoned argument; you asked ILA, "Which comments are false?". Zappa commented that "Those who disagree, yet can't refute the facts, routinely resort to petty personal attacks.", you responded affirming that point, "Lol. I know. Expecting anything different is like expecting the sun to rise in the west. ".
Reading that, one would be led to believe, assuming you and Zappa possess any intellectual integrity, that hearing on-point refutations to the article would be respected and responded to in kind. LOL, you're liberals, I should know better!
Had you started a thread simply asking for what the consensus gun rights argument is, I might see this as valid. You went in posting a "fantastic article" that was a "great read" and was sure to aggravate gun lovers . . . That the replies you got were ranging is mostly a product of the throw-shit-on-the-wall-and-see-what-sticks nature of the article, not from any "disagreement" among "gun lovers".
If you think that accusing me of changing the topic will distract people from you running away from your challenge to gun rights supporters to refute the article and your true / false questions, you are deluded.
"Admit that the 2nd didn't go through 2+ centuries of history untouched by controversy" . . . WTF does that mean? Of course there has been controversy. The last 70 years saw the infection of the federal courts with the "militia right" and "state's right" interpretation which directly led to hundreds of unconstitutional gun laws being upheld / sustained under 2nd Amendment challenge. Yeah, there's been controversy. What controversy do you want to talk about?
This contradicts what you now say is the reason for the thread . . . Where is any mention that the refutation with certifiable facts you are demanding means anyone replying must all use the same facts? Besides, this quote of yourself is stupid on your part, you can't be addressing this comment to me. I gave you what you asked for and more; which is why you changed your tune about refutation and ran away like a scalded cat.
That doesn't change the fact that some of those positions are constitutionally correct and some are profoundly and irredeemably repugnant to the Constitution. That you don't care to discuss the right or wrong tells me you already know what side you are on.
Can't you be an adult about this? You come out with this reason for the thread 115 posts in, after you ask for rebuttals to your article, after you change that to asking two sets of true / false questions that you demand we answer, after you challenge a reply to your questions with, "What I'm ASKING, not saying, is what research do you have to rebut the author's. Citations, not opinions?" and after you weasel away from me rebutting your article point by point saying, "I'm not the gun person here. Maybe ILoveAmeriKKKa can help you"? That's when you come up with a new intent for the thread?
The only variation among the gun lover's replies that you are upset about is that they are not all unhinged rants and personal insults that you can play the victim.
That you actually got on-point rebuttals that didn't leave you any room to argue back is why you are angry.
Grow the fuck up.
.
Last edited:
Of course to you anyone not a liberal is the same, you can't differentiate between conservative and libertarian even when consistently applied. I'm conservative fiscally, but liberal socially and for a relatively small, defense focused military and you can't tell the difference between Jerry Falwell and me.
I always post under this name, sweet heart. no interest in setting up another account to make the same points
transwarpdrive
Destroyer of Liberals
"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms..."
Sorry to burst your fantasy, but there are few clauses in the constitution as clear as that one.
If anything, cities like NY and Chicago that ban handguns are in violation of the constitution, and proclaiming that the individual right to own a weapon is laughable nonsense.
transwarpdrive
Destroyer of Liberals
No need to. This line from that post is ludicrous nonsense, did not need to read further:
"There is, in fact, absolutely no mention of a right to own guns in the Constitution of the United States of America. There of course is the right to "bear arms," but "arms" is a broad term that is not defined with specificity in the Constitution."
Stating that the public has the right to "bear" arms - but not own them? Seriously? That is the person's "argument"? What does that mean, to obtain arms one would have to go to the library? Or maybe they can come in a cereal box? How about they only only be held on Tuesdays, but not Thursdays? Get real.
Didn't ya notice?
I ripped that stupid shit to shreds.
http://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...-reasoning-With-a-twist&p=1515795#post1515795