SmarterthanYou
rebel
you need historical references to understand the right to bear arms is an individual right, so there you go. you now have some.
Today's lesson in the constitution
- Thread starter Craig234
- Start date
you need historical references to understand the right to bear arms is an individual right, so there you go. you now have some.
Interesting how domer left that part out.
You misinterpret his wording. The militia WAS comprised of able bodied civilians. That's the context that little cut and paste explains. Not a formal fighting force. The point that continues to escape you is that the 2nd was NOT written in the context of idiots like you packing anywhere, anytime, anything. That's where your massive ignorance is continually demonstrated.
It became one with Heller and only then, idiot.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
such a fucking moron. you've been shown you're wrong, that the 2nd is INDIVIDUAL, not militia based, and you've been given court cases from before heller, yet still you claim ignorance and stupidity.
A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person. (Madison)
SmarterthanYou
rebel
again, fuckstick, this is irrelevant because it is NOT the version that was ratified. one would think that an idiot such as yourself, who is stuck on exact verbiage because you believe there are no inalienable rights stated in the constitution, that you wouldn't beholden yourself to such a moronic claim as the above......but alas, you're still a retarded fuckstick.
Poor, iliiterate fucktard. The wording that was finally ratified does not change the original intent. Do you really think that changed in a matter of days, fucking idiot?
Look up the historical references to what it meant to “bear arms”. ALWAYS in the context of the military or militia. It did not mean just carrying a gun.
Fucking historical cretin.
evince
Truthmatters
The U. S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, states:
“The Congress shall have Power ... To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; To provide and maintain a Navy; To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces; To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;”
“The Congress shall have Power ... To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; To provide and maintain a Navy; To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces; To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;”
You really should stop doing that because it makes you look like an idiot.
Imparting those words with conditioning and qualifying action on the right could be plausible IF the right was created / given / granted / established by the 2nd Amendment. Since the right is a fundamental right retained by the people, a "pre-existing right", and not granted or created by the 2nd Amendment, the right to arms is not in any manner dependent on any words in the Constitution for its existence.
Your emphasis on those words, as if they mean something to the right of the people to keep and bear arms is anti-constitutional and really just a 20th Century leftist invention you have bought into.
Last edited:
Priceless!
Last edited:
Except in Cruikshank (1876) where the SCOTUS discussed the right to keep and bear arms of two former slaves, then citizens, who were armed in public for self-defense from the KKK and Night Riders, who were disarmed, kidnapped and lynched in a event called the Colfax Massacre.
From the link:
"The Colfax Massacre is the bloodiest single incident in the Reconstruction period, according to historian Eric Foner. On this day in 1873, about 300 white Louisianans armed with rifles and a cannon surrounded the courthouse in Colfax, Louisiana, attempting to seize power from African-American local officials and a group of freedmen and former Union soldiers who were defending the town government. Shots rang out, and after a skirmish, the black defenders, overmatched and outgunned, attempted to flee the courthouse. Many were shot as they tried to escape. Others were taken prisoner, and subsequently killed by their captors. Estimates vary widely, but it appears that at least 80 black Americans were killed that day—many in cold blood—by terrorists seeking to destroy the Reconstruction government in Louisiana. The perpetrators of this violence were prosecuted by the federal government but never convicted of a crime, which only served to embolden terrorist organizations like the Ku Klux Klan and other groups seeking to restore racial hierarchy to the South.
The federal prosecution of the perpetrators of the Colfax Massacre went all the way to the Supreme Court, which resulted in one of the worst decisions in Supreme Court history, United States v. Cruikshank."
The federal prosecution of the perpetrators of the Colfax Massacre went all the way to the Supreme Court, which resulted in one of the worst decisions in Supreme Court history, United States v. Cruikshank."
This happened in Louisiana in 1873, a state with no official state militia -- it being disbanded by the 39th Congress. Even if there was a state militia the two Black citizens would have been barred from enrolling / serving by federal and state law. No possible militia link or dependency can be read into Cruikshank or Presser or Miller or Lewis . . . SCOTUS never embraced any "collective right" interpretation; SCOTUS has only recognized an individual right unconnected to any militia.
Please learn some history instead of parroting anti-gun made-up bullshit.
At least I have the foundational principles of the Constitution, the writings of the framers and 200+ years of SCOTUS holdings enforcing that "not granted" principle to rely on, to support my argument.
What do you have?
SmarterthanYou
rebel
domers issue is he doesn't understand the constitution. He thinks it tells us, we the people, what we can and cannot do instead of it's original intent, telling the government what they can and cannot do. I think it's called liberalism.
It's what statists do. They need for government to be the master not the subordinate.
It is a forced state of mind that must be maintained to protect and serve their collectivist / leftist political agenda.
It is a mind-set completely hostile to the principles of the Constitution and utterly immune to reason and facts; all I try to do is expose the flaws and deficiencies in their position by presenting unimpeachable oppositional argument. Proving without any doubt the Nordberg's the dormer's and envince's wrong, is giving lurkers and other interested readers a good reason to dismiss them as competent voices.
That's my only goal.
Pre-existing. Gotta love it! Pre-existing starting when?
SmarterthanYou
rebel
your statist mindset would not be able to comprehend it. it's why we find it worthless trying to convince you
Does gravity pre-exist Newton's law or was it created by it and qualified by it and conditioned upon Newton's description of gravity?
Those fundamental rights of the US citizen are of similar nature.
The people possessed and exercised those rights before the Constitution was put to parchment.
Because no power was granted to government to have any interest in the personal arms of the private citizen, those rights remain in the people's possession without modification, qualification or condition. They are called "retained" rights.
In order for something to be considered "retained" it must be held out, reserved from inclusion from something else that came into existence AFTER the interest being "retained" . . . The term implies an order of appearance / existence correct?
What does the 9th Amendment mean to you?
What does the word "retained" in the 9th Amendment mean to you?
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Why do you argue the absurd notion that the enumeration of a specific right can be used to deny and disparage that right?
ETA: Why no response to post 213?
Do you have any rebuttal or are you conceding that you are wrong?
Last edited:
Yes, but the ignorance allows me to yet again explain to others, the principles at work.
Not everyone has a cranium packed with Marxist cement.