The right to arm bears.
- Thread starter Grugore
- Start date
Whoooops....lying dumbass:
Repealing the Second Amendment isn't easy but it's what March for Our Lives students need
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opin...amendment-march-our-lives-students/463644002/
Whoooops....lying dumbass:
Let's repeal the Second Amendment
https://www.democratandchronicle.co...02/16/lets-repeal-second-amendment/345365002/
How can an inanimate product be the problem, you dipshit?
/MSG/
Uwaa OmO
What, you gonna deny me some syrup soaked poutine you fucking leaf?
Yeah retard; Evince is very "well", you can tell how mentally balanced she is with every post; and you're just an every day run of the mill idiot.
montgomery
Verified User
I'm going to ask you about your weight problem, but only as a diversion from sensible and rational discussions with the best of the members on this site. And that is, irrespective of their political persuasions, just their ability to discuss and debate in a decent and rational manner.
But for now, let's stick to our discussion so you can tell me about the diets you've tried.
Ask me when you're ready about a sure way of succeeding!
/MSG/
Uwaa OmO
I'm not sure much productive discussion could be had with you on the matter as you seem to subsist wholly on beaver dicks and hockey player piss.
montgomery
Verified User
I think it would be better if we just ignored each other. But, if you insist? Limit it to 'our' discussion between the two of us and I'll answer you back. Otherwise I'm going to have to end it now.
Someone says you are a woman; is that true? What province do you hail from?
/MSG/
Uwaa OmO
If you're throwing in the towel this early you shouldn't have even stepped in the ring chief.
montgomery
Verified User
Off Topic.
You're a dumbfuck who supports a party whose ultimate agenda is to take your firearms away. Yay you!
Like an Ass-Hole, everyone has one ... Yay You
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Very funny.
It is conservatives who do not understand the second Amendment.
I interpret the 2nd differently than the NRA. The NRA leaves out an important part of the 2nd. I understand these words are inscribed on their DC headquarters: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." But that's not the whole 2nd. Why did they leave out the first part? Is the NRA really a 2nd Amendment champion or does it only support one phrase out of it? Without the NRA omission, the entire 2nd reads: "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 NRA position is that the purpose of the 2nd is as conservatives state, that a government check and balance exists if the populace is armed and able to resist government force. I disagree. The 2nd does not say that. I don't think that is what was intended by the 2nd. The NRA's interpretation does not provide for 'the security of a free state.' That's an important phrase. It is how the 2nd begins.
The NRA's interpretation provides for the security of the populace against an overbearing state. If that's what it meant, it would have been worded that way. "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" means that without a large standing army, the nation needs to be able to raise an army to defend the USA from outside aggression. That almost certainly implies the nation was never intended to have a large standing army.
One of the biggest objections of the colonialists was having the professional government army troops used to enforce the law, or do the dirty work of corrupt leaders. So our forefathers took great steps to prevent that. The Constitution suggests the government will have no permanent standing army. There is no provision to permanently fund an army. It is clearly intended to be temporary, as needed: "Congress shall have the power to raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years." Since there was never intended to be a permanently standing army, there has to be a provision to quickly raise one, if needed. That's why the 2nd clearly states the reason for having the citizens armed when it says it is necessary for 'the security of a free state.' ('state' here meaning the entire USA as a country.)
I believe the NRA has misconstrued the 2nd Amendment.
I also believe the 2nd Amendment is outdated, and should be replaced. Obviously, we do need to have a standing army with the level of modern warfare. We have created a law which prevents the army from being used domestically to enforce the law. The Posse Comitatus Act. That's why it was so absurd for President Trump to send troops to the southern border, because they can't be used to enforce immigration law. The USA needs a standing army, and we don't need to raise a militia for the security of the USA. So the first part of the 2nd is outdated. I believe the right to keep and bear arms should be protected by a new Amendment. The right should be maintained for the reason of personal defense and freedom.
But not everyone should have guns. Crazy and violent people should not have guns. We need to regulate gun ownership. We need to register all the guns while protecting the right to own them. I don't know how to write or word such an Amendment, but I believe it should provide for some type of testing and licensing of gun ownership.
And the word 'arms' is ambiguous. Weapons of mass destruction are 'arms' in an international arms race, but people should have no right to those. And I do not believe citizens should have a right to own all the same weapons that armies do. I believe the right to gun ownership for preference, sport and defense should be a right, with responsibilities and conditions. This strikes me as a basic freedom which should be maintained. I do not believe the need for such a right is so that people can fight armed battles against government agents.
There is no way I can envision the people of the USA taking up arms against the government, and I see no need for such a right to exist. The citizens are protected by the Constitution. The pen is mightier than the sword. The checks and balances of our government are designed to prevent the government from violating the populace. There has never been an armed insurrection against our government, and if there ever was, it would be met with overwhelming force and promptly put down. The 2nd does not allow people to take up arms against the USA. It allows them to take up arms in DEFENSE of the USA. It is very clear about that.
It is conservatives who do not understand the second Amendment.
I interpret the 2nd differently than the NRA. The NRA leaves out an important part of the 2nd. I understand these words are inscribed on their DC headquarters: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." But that's not the whole 2nd. Why did they leave out the first part? Is the NRA really a 2nd Amendment champion or does it only support one phrase out of it? Without the NRA omission, the entire 2nd reads: "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 NRA position is that the purpose of the 2nd is as conservatives state, that a government check and balance exists if the populace is armed and able to resist government force. I disagree. The 2nd does not say that. I don't think that is what was intended by the 2nd. The NRA's interpretation does not provide for 'the security of a free state.' That's an important phrase. It is how the 2nd begins.
The NRA's interpretation provides for the security of the populace against an overbearing state. If that's what it meant, it would have been worded that way. "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" means that without a large standing army, the nation needs to be able to raise an army to defend the USA from outside aggression. That almost certainly implies the nation was never intended to have a large standing army.
One of the biggest objections of the colonialists was having the professional government army troops used to enforce the law, or do the dirty work of corrupt leaders. So our forefathers took great steps to prevent that. The Constitution suggests the government will have no permanent standing army. There is no provision to permanently fund an army. It is clearly intended to be temporary, as needed: "Congress shall have the power to raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years." Since there was never intended to be a permanently standing army, there has to be a provision to quickly raise one, if needed. That's why the 2nd clearly states the reason for having the citizens armed when it says it is necessary for 'the security of a free state.' ('state' here meaning the entire USA as a country.)
I believe the NRA has misconstrued the 2nd Amendment.
I also believe the 2nd Amendment is outdated, and should be replaced. Obviously, we do need to have a standing army with the level of modern warfare. We have created a law which prevents the army from being used domestically to enforce the law. The Posse Comitatus Act. That's why it was so absurd for President Trump to send troops to the southern border, because they can't be used to enforce immigration law. The USA needs a standing army, and we don't need to raise a militia for the security of the USA. So the first part of the 2nd is outdated. I believe the right to keep and bear arms should be protected by a new Amendment. The right should be maintained for the reason of personal defense and freedom.
But not everyone should have guns. Crazy and violent people should not have guns. We need to regulate gun ownership. We need to register all the guns while protecting the right to own them. I don't know how to write or word such an Amendment, but I believe it should provide for some type of testing and licensing of gun ownership.
And the word 'arms' is ambiguous. Weapons of mass destruction are 'arms' in an international arms race, but people should have no right to those. And I do not believe citizens should have a right to own all the same weapons that armies do. I believe the right to gun ownership for preference, sport and defense should be a right, with responsibilities and conditions. This strikes me as a basic freedom which should be maintained. I do not believe the need for such a right is so that people can fight armed battles against government agents.
There is no way I can envision the people of the USA taking up arms against the government, and I see no need for such a right to exist. The citizens are protected by the Constitution. The pen is mightier than the sword. The checks and balances of our government are designed to prevent the government from violating the populace. There has never been an armed insurrection against our government, and if there ever was, it would be met with overwhelming force and promptly put down. The 2nd does not allow people to take up arms against the USA. It allows them to take up arms in DEFENSE of the USA. It is very clear about that.
Lightbringer
Loves Me Some Souls
This is one of the most impressive displays of ignorance I have ever seen.
The Founders are on record, none of us need you to "guess" what they meant. We already know.
"Arms" as used in the Second Amendment is not open to debate, we know what that word means because once again, the Founders did write a little about it and courts have ruled on that. Would you like me to tell you what "arms" means? You sure as hell don't give enough of a fuck to actually research a topic before you spew from your keyboard.
Trump didn't do anything wrong. When I was in the service my division was deployed to Los Angeles, I also did 3 months of border guard duty. Posse Comitatus doesn't mean what you think it does.
Question for you: You have an AR-15 and a sawed-off shotgun. One of those weapons is protected under the Second Amendment and one isn't. Which one is protected and which one isn't...and why?
Historically, Politalker is partially correct.
The Second had two purposes. One was EXACTLY as PoliTalker indicated. The founders observed what happened in Europe with permanent, standing armies and they had a disdain for that. The armed civilian militia was a stopgap from any invaders until a standing army could be mustered. PoliTalker is correct in that respect. Also correct in that context is that the Second is outdated. Why have a militia when you already have the bigeest, baddest standing military in the world.
It’s not the word “arms” that is in dispute. “Bear arms” is the term to be discussed. In the 18th Century, “bear arms” was always used in a military context. You didn’t “bear arms” to go out and shoot dinner. You bore arms to protect yourself or your community from the enemy. There is no doubt about that context.
The Second also was about protection from a tyrannical government. In that time, that was very much a reality, especially in Europe. Arms put you on a more equal footing. Again, the civilian militia. In today’s context, that’s a joke. A true tyrannical government can kill someone halfway across the world with a push of a button. Anyone thinking they can protect themselves from the full force of the government today is delusional. Again, the Second is outdated. PoliTalker is correct.
The Second was never intended to be used as it has morphed into thanks to groups like the NRA. 24/7 carry? Pffffft. Again, PoliTalker is correct.
Lightbringer
Loves Me Some Souls
PoliTalker is not correct because PoliTalker is deliberately injecting obviously incorrect personal opinion as fact. If you start with a grain of truth but then use that to inject your personal bullshit in order to prove the sun rises in the West then you're not telling the truth.
I'll ask you too: You have two weapons...an AR-15 and a sawed-off shotgun. One is protected under the Second Amendment and one isn't. Which weapon is protected and which one isn't protected...but more important...why?