Jump to content

A debate with Veritas about gun control?????


Recommended Posts

First, Mr. Veritas, have you ever read the US Constitution, Article 1, section 8?

Second, do you understand that an Amendment AMENDS something?

Third, what does a "well regulated militia"  mean when construed with Article 1, Section 8?

Fourth, does the US Marine Corps have any safety measures in place when using live ammunition,

or do they just allow Marines to wave loaded guns around in churches.

 

Now to your questions:

Veritas said:

I am a gun enthusiast, and avidly support the second amendment,

Noooo, you do not unless you understand what a well regulated militia, the national guard is for, which is 

to repel invasions and to suppress insurrections, not to overthrow the government.

 

but I realize that there are areas that we can find sensible gun control that doesn’t limit our rights and makes us safer.  

The Constitution already provides for sensible gun control.   It says assault rifles or military weapons

ONLY belong in the responsible hands of a well regulated militia, the national guard.    That is the

clear, explicit wording of the Constitution.

 

It does not make any sense for judges and politicians to verbally masterbate and pander to gun nuts.

 

1.  How do you feel about the SCOTUS ruling DC vs Heller 554 US 570 (2008)?  Do you agree with it?  Do you agree with it’s enforcement?

I believe in the US Constitution, not some political hacks pretending to be judges.

The only gun which is grandfathered in for Americans to own is a one shot muzzle loader which 

colonists had before the adoption of the Constitution.

 

2.  Gun Control Advocates:  If you could ban on weapon that is currently legal what would it be and why?

Gun Enthusiasts:  If you had to ban one firearm that is currently legal what would it be and why?

That is a no brainer.   Ban any weapon shooting more than 2 shots which is pretty much a deer rifle

or shotgun in the hands of a responsible hunter.    If a hunter can not kill a deer with one shot, he

should not own a gun.

 

4.  How would you attempt to stop firearms getting into the wrong hands without restricting the rights of law abiding citizens?

Elect politicians and judges who will follow the Constitution to the letter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 67
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

5 minutes ago, William1444 said:

 

Now to your questions:

Veritas said:

I am a gun enthusiast, and avidly support the second amendment,

Noooo, you do not unless you understand what a well regulated militia, the national guard is for, which is 

to repel invasions and to suppress insurrections, not to overthrow the government.

 

but I realize that there are areas that we can find sensible gun control that doesn’t limit our rights and makes us safer.  

The Constitution already provides for sensible gun control.   It says assault rifles or military weapons

ONLY belong in the responsible hands of a well regulated militia, the national guard.    That is the

clear, explicit wording of the Constitution.

 

It does not make any sense for judges and politicians to verbally masterbate and pander to gun nuts.

 

1.  How do you feel about the SCOTUS ruling DC vs Heller 554 US 570 (2008)?  Do you agree with it?  Do you agree with it’s enforcement?

I believe in the US Constitution, not some political hacks pretending to be judges.

The only gun which is grandfathered in for Americans to own is a one shot muzzle loader which 

colonists had before the adoption of the Constitution.

 

2.  Gun Control Advocates:  If you could ban on weapon that is currently legal what would it be and why?

Gun Enthusiasts:  If you had to ban one firearm that is currently legal what would it be and why?

That is a no brainer.   Ban any weapon shooting more than 2 shots which is pretty much a deer rifle

or shotgun in the hands of a responsible hunter.    If a hunter can not kill a deer with one shot, he

should not own a gun.

 

4.  How would you attempt to stop firearms getting into the wrong hands without restricting the rights of law abiding citizens?

Elect politicians and judges who will follow the Constitution to the letter.

 

First...the definition of militia is "all able bodied people".  It does not state the only exist during an invasion or insurrection.  Technically, the militia ALWAYS exist.

 

Second...please cite the exact part of the Constitution that mentions ANY weapon specifically

 

Third...please cite the exact part of the Constitution that mentions ANY weapon specifically.  When it, and the 2 Amendment, was written they had no problem with the average citizen having access to every weapon available to the military.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, BatteryPowered said:

 

First...the definition of militia is "all able bodied people". 

The militia says it is composed of Americans in an organization ORGANIZED, DISCIPLINED AND 

ARMED BY CONGRESS, and NOT everybody, ass hole.   Stop your fucking LYING, LYING, LYING.

 

It does not state the only exist during an invasion or insurrection. 

Article 1, Section 8 states that the ONLY purpose of the militia is to repel invasions or suppress 

insurrections like the ass holes in the traitorous confederacy and other rebellions.

 

Technically, the militia ALWAYS exist.

Nooooo, it exists as the national guard, organized, disciplined and armed by congress.

 

Second...please cite the exact part of the Constitution that mentions ANY weapon specifically

Armed by congress, ie, military weapons.

 

Third...please cite the exact part of the Constitution that mentions ANY weapon specifically.  When it, and the 2 Amendment, was written they had no problem with the average citizen having access to every weapon available to the military.

Nope ass hole, Americans had single shot muzzle loaders and double barreled shotguns, that was it.

Americans were not allowed to have cannons nor mortars which the Army had.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, William1444 said:

Noooo, you do not unless you understand what a well regulated militia, the national guard is for, which is 

to repel invasions and to suppress insurrections, not to overthrow the government.

 

You're wrong William.  

 

The Founders were specific in stating that a well regulated militia was the WHOLE of the people ... EVERY MAN ... not just "the national guard".  

 

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

 

"A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."
- James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

 

Jefferson said "Every citizen should be a soldier.  This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free state."

 

And I could go on and on and on, quoting them.

 

Furthermore, they made it very clear that the purpose of an armed militia, composed of the WHOLE OF THE PEOPLE, was to prevent a tyranny in this great land.  

 

And to do that, the WHOLE BODY OF THE PEOPLE needed to be the equal of any standing army.  

 

And National Guard type forces were considered part of that standing army.    

 

John Smiley, for example, told the ratifying convention that "Congress may give us a select militia (BAC - i.e., a National Guard) which will in fact be a standing army", and worried that, with this force in hand, "the people in general may be disarmed".

 

Richard Henry Lee stated "the Constitution ought to secure a genuine and guard against a select militia by providing that the militia shall always be kept well organized, armed, and disciplined, and include, according to the past and general usage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms".

 

You are wrong.   The Second Amendment was specifically intended to provide a way for The People to defend themselves against a rogue federal government.   That was the ONLY reason it was added to the Constitution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, my name in the lime light....I’m blushing.

 

First, Mr. Veritas, have you ever read the US Constitution, Article 3, section 8?  Yes I have read The Constitution, there is no section 8 in article 3.  Maybe you should read it more.

Second, do you understand that an Amendment AMENDS something?  Yes, don’t patronize me.  You don’t get anywhere by having an attitude before you even begin debate.

Third, what does a "well regulated militia"  mean when construed with Article 3, Section 8? See above.

Fourth, does the US Marine Corps have any safety measures in place when using live ammunition, or do they just allow Marines to wave loaded guns around in churches. Yes, what’s your point?  The enlistment agreement clearly states that Marines are regulated by the UCMJ and by the orders of our supperiors acting in accordance with the UCMJ.  This has nothing to do with regulating citizens.

 

Now to your questions:

Veritas said:

I am a gun enthusiast, and avidly support the second amendment,

Noooo, you do not unless you understand what a well regulated militia, the national guard is for, which is 

to repel invasions and to suppress insurrections, not to overthrow the government.  Curious that you would assume to know what I believe when your own assumptions are clearly not well educated.  I recommend that your read historical documents and letters written by the founding fathers on their inclusion of the 2nd Amendment and the powers on the congress.

 

but I realize that there are areas that we can find sensible gun control that doesn’t limit our rights and makes us safer.  

The Constitution already provides for sensible gun control.   It says assault rifles or military weapons 

ONLY belong in the responsible hands of a well regulated militia, the national guard.    That is the

clear, explicit wording of the Constitution.  Show me liar!  Assault rifles were not in existence at the time and your use of that term is again a clear example that you are not educated on this topic.  Copy and past the words in the Constitution that say this “assault rifles or military weapons ONLY belong in the responsible hands of a well regulated militia, the national guard” here....

 

It does not make any sense for judges and politicians to verbally masterbate and pander to gun nuts.  Around 55M Americans own guns and around 67M live in a home with a gun.  More than 5M people are members of the NRA, the majority of signed gun regulation in recent history has been been done in support of the NRA and even written by them at times.  Records for new concealed carry permits are broken all the time.  Ignoring this demographic would be a moronic thing for any politician to do.  

 

1.  How do you feel about the SCOTUS ruling DC vs Heller 554 US 570 (2008)?  Do you agree with it?  Do you agree with it’s enforcement?

I believe in the US Constitution, not some political hacks pretending to be judges.

The only gun which is grandfathered in for Americans to own is a one shot muzzle loader which 

colonists had before the adoption of the Constitution. If you believe in the Constitution then you believe in the power and duty the Constitution gives to the SCOTUS.  What you are doing here is only following the parts of the Constitution that are convenient to your ideals.  This is a weak and hypocritical argument by you.  

 

2.  Gun Control Advocates:  If you could ban on weapon that is currently legal what would it be and why?

Gun Enthusiasts:  If you had to ban one firearm that is currently legal what would it be and why?

That is a no brainer.   Ban any weapon shooting more than 2 shots which is pretty much a deer rifle 

or shotgun in the hands of a responsible hunter.    If a hunter can not kill a deer with one shot, he 

should not own a gun. Not going to reward this stupidity with a response other than to say you should really educate yourself more on this topic before embarrassing yourself like this.

 

4.  How would you attempt to stop firearms getting into the wrong hands without restricting the rights of law abiding citizens?

Elect politicians and judges who will follow the Constitution to the letter.  You mean follow the parts of the Constitution “you” agree with and ignore the rest.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, BeAChooser said:

 

You're wrong William.  

The Founders were specific in stating that a well regulated militia was the WHOLE of the people ... EVERY MAN ... not just "the national guard".  

ONLY IF THE PEOPLE WERE PART OF A WELL REGULATED, DISCIPLINED MILITARY

ORGANIZED BY CONGRESS.  That is what the Constitution says.   Those are the 

explicit words.    Nothing else matters about what  some politicians said or wrote

as you pointed out, nothing.    When the Constitution was ratified, that was it, the words 

are written in stone.

 

Furthermore, they made it very clear that the purpose of an armed militia, composed of the WHOLE OF THE PEOPLE, was to prevent a tyranny in this great land.  

Noooo, again, you are wrong.   The constitution clearly states that the militia,

organized, armed and disciplined by congress is to repel invasions and suppress insurrections and NOT to attack the government like timothy mcveigh or robert e lee.

 

And to do that, the WHOLE BODY OF THE PEOPLE needed to be the equal of any standing army.  

organized, disciplined, and armed by congress.

 

And National Guard type forces were considered part of that standing army.   

noooooo, only in war.   Otherwise, the national guard is the militia. 

 

Richard Henry Lee stated "the Constitution ought to secure a genuine and guard against a select militia by providing that the militia shall always be kept well organized, armed, and disciplined, and include, according to the past and general usage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms".

Soooooo, how can a militia be both organized and not organized?    Answer:   They can't.   It is like being a little bit pregnant.   Impossible.  

Sure, everyone can join.    But until they join the militia national guard, and submit to the discipline of the national guard, they are just a rabble gunning down children in churches and schools with automatic rifles.

 

You are wrong.   The Second Amendment was specifically intended to provide a way for The People to defend themselves against a rogue federal government.   That was the ONLY reason it was added to the Constitution.

Just the exact opposite.    The militia purpose is to suppress insurrections and NOT to support a rogue government.   The way you get rid of a rogue government is to vote the republican ass holes and criminals out of office.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, William1444 said:

First, Mr. Veritas, have you ever read the US Constitution, Article 1, section 8?

Second, do you understand that an Amendment AMENDS something?

Third, what does a "well regulated militia"  mean when construed with Article 1, Section 8?

Fourth, does the US Marine Corps have any safety measures in place when using live ammunition,

or do they just allow Marines to wave loaded guns around in churches.

 

Now to your questions:

Veritas said:

I am a gun enthusiast, and avidly support the second amendment,

Noooo, you do not unless you understand what a well regulated militia, the national guard is for, which is 

to repel invasions and to suppress insurrections, not to overthrow the government.

 

but I realize that there are areas that we can find sensible gun control that doesn’t limit our rights and makes us safer.  

The Constitution already provides for sensible gun control.   It says assault rifles or military weapons

ONLY belong in the responsible hands of a well regulated militia, the national guard.    That is the

clear, explicit wording of the Constitution.

 

It does not make any sense for judges and politicians to verbally masterbate and pander to gun nuts.

 

1.  How do you feel about the SCOTUS ruling DC vs Heller 554 US 570 (2008)?  Do you agree with it?  Do you agree with it’s enforcement?

I believe in the US Constitution, not some political hacks pretending to be judges.

The only gun which is grandfathered in for Americans to own is a one shot muzzle loader which 

colonists had before the adoption of the Constitution.

 

2.  Gun Control Advocates:  If you could ban on weapon that is currently legal what would it be and why?

Gun Enthusiasts:  If you had to ban one firearm that is currently legal what would it be and why?

That is a no brainer.   Ban any weapon shooting more than 2 shots which is pretty much a deer rifle

or shotgun in the hands of a responsible hunter.    If a hunter can not kill a deer with one shot, he

should not own a gun.

 

4.  How would you attempt to stop firearms getting into the wrong hands without restricting the rights of law abiding citizens?

Elect politicians and judges who will follow the Constitution to the letter.

groans... this whole argument has been discredited long ago. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Veritas101 said:

Wow, my name in the lime light....I’m blushing.

 

First, Mr. Veritas, have you ever read the US Constitution, Article 3, section 8?  Yes I have read The Constitution, there is no section 8 in article 3.  Maybe you should read it more.

Second, do you understand that an Amendment AMENDS something?  Yes, don’t patronize me.  You don’t get anywhere by having an attitude before you even begin debate.

Third, what does a "well regulated militia"  mean when construed with Article 3, Section 8? See above.

Fourth, does the US Marine Corps have any safety measures in place when using live ammunition, or do they just allow Marines to wave loaded guns around in churches. Yes, what’s your point?  The enlistment agreement clearly states that Marines are regulated by the UCMJ and by the orders of our supperiors acting in accordance with the UCMJ.  This has nothing to do with regulating citizens.

 

Now to your questions:

Veritas said:

I am a gun enthusiast, and avidly support the second amendment,

Noooo, you do not unless you understand what a well regulated militia, the national guard is for, which is 

to repel invasions and to suppress insurrections, not to overthrow the government.  Curious that you would assume to know what I believe when your own assumptions are clearly not well educated.  I recommend that your read historical documents and letters written by the founding fathers on their inclusion of the 2nd Amendment and the powers on the congress.

 

but I realize that there are areas that we can find sensible gun control that doesn’t limit our rights and makes us safer.  

The Constitution already provides for sensible gun control.   It says assault rifles or military weapons 

ONLY belong in the responsible hands of a well regulated militia, the national guard.    That is the

clear, explicit wording of the Constitution.  Show me liar!  Assault rifles were not in existence at the time and your use of that term is again a clear example that you are not educated on this topic.  Copy and past the words in the Constitution that say this “assault rifles or military weapons ONLY belong in the responsible hands of a well regulated militia, the national guard” here....

 

It does not make any sense for judges and politicians to verbally masterbate and pander to gun nuts.  Around 55M Americans own guns and around 67M live in a home with a gun.  More than 5M people are members of the NRA, the majority of signed gun regulation in recent history has been been done in support of the NRA and even written by them at times.  Records for new concealed carry permits are broken all the time.  Ignoring this demographic would be a moronic thing for any politician to do.  

 

1.  How do you feel about the SCOTUS ruling DC vs Heller 554 US 570 (2008)?  Do you agree with it?  Do you agree with it’s enforcement?

I believe in the US Constitution, not some political hacks pretending to be judges.

The only gun which is grandfathered in for Americans to own is a one shot muzzle loader which 

colonists had before the adoption of the Constitution. If you believe in the Constitution then you believe in the power and duty the Constitution gives to the SCOTUS.  What you are doing here is only following the parts of the Constitution that are convenient to your ideals.  This is a weak and hypocritical argument by you.  

 

2.  Gun Control Advocates:  If you could ban on weapon that is currently legal what would it be and why?

Gun Enthusiasts:  If you had to ban one firearm that is currently legal what would it be and why?

That is a no brainer.   Ban any weapon shooting more than 2 shots which is pretty much a deer rifle 

or shotgun in the hands of a responsible hunter.    If a hunter can not kill a deer with one shot, he 

should not own a gun. Not going to reward this stupidity with a response other than to say you should really educate yourself more on this topic before embarrassing yourself like this.

 

4.  How would you attempt to stop firearms getting into the wrong hands without restricting the rights of law abiding citizens?

Elect politicians and judges who will follow the Constitution to the letter.  You mean follow the parts of the Constitution “you” agree with and ignore the rest.

 

Damn! Game set match. Say goodnight Gracie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Veritas101 said:

Wow, my name in the lime light....I’m blushing.

 

First, Mr. Veritas, have you ever read the US Constitution, Article 3, section 8?  Yes I have read The Constitution, there is no section 8 in article 3.  Maybe you should read it more.

Clerical error.   I corrected it.   Article 1.   Now run along and read that Article, section 8.

 

Fourth, does the US Marine Corps have any safety measures in place when using live ammunition, or do they just allow Marines to wave loaded guns around in churches. Yes, what’s your point?  The enlistment agreement clearly states that Marines are regulated by the UCMJ and by the orders of our supperiors acting in accordance with the UCMJ.  This has nothing to do with regulating citizens.

 

It has EVERYTHING TO DO WITH REGULATING ANYONE WITH A FIREARM.    Duhhh.

That is why the militia needs to be well regulated, organized, disciplined, by congress.   Duhhhh.

 

Now to your questions:

Veritas said:

I am a gun enthusiast, and avidly support the second amendment,

Noooo, you do not unless you understand what a well regulated militia, the national guard is for, which is 

to repel invasions and to suppress insurrections, not to overthrow the government.  Curious that you would assume to know what I believe when your own assumptions are clearly not well educated.  I recommend that your read historical documents and letters written by the founding fathers on their inclusion of the 2nd Amendment and the powers on the congress.

 

What anyone said or wrote before ratification  is not relevant to the exact, explicit words of the Constitution that they finally agreed to.

 

 

but I realize that there are areas that we can find sensible gun control that doesn’t limit our rights and makes us safer.  

The Constitution already provides for sensible gun control.   It says assault rifles or military weapons 

ONLY belong in the responsible hands of a well regulated militia, the national guard.    That is the

clear, explicit wording of the Constitution.  Show me liar!  Assault rifles were not in existence at the time and your use of that term is again a clear example that you are not educated on this topic.  Copy and past the words in the Constitution that say this “assault rifles or military weapons ONLY belong in the responsible hands of a well regulated militia, the national guard” here....

 

Military weapons used  in 1776 included cannons and mortars and mines.    

None of those were allowed to be in the hands of ordinary Americans armed with one shot muzzle loaders unless they were supervised by military officers.

 

It does not make any sense for judges and politicians to verbally masterbate and pander to gun nuts.  Around 55M Americans own guns and around 67M live in a home with a gun.  More than 5M people are members of the NRA, the majority of signed gun regulation in recent history has been been done in support of the NRA and even written by them at times.  Records for new concealed carry permits are broken all the time.  Ignoring this demographic would be a moronic thing for any politician to do.  

 

That is why I say that republicans and their supporters are such a bunch of fucking

LIARS including perjurers since they take an oath to uphold the Constitution but then, violate it to pander to a bunch of shit heads who PERVERT the Constitution.

 

1.  How do you feel about the SCOTUS ruling DC vs Heller 554 US 570 (2008)?  Do you agree with it?  Do you agree with it’s enforcement?

I believe in the US Constitution, not some political hacks pretending to be judges.

The only gun which is grandfathered in for Americans to own is a one shot muzzle loader which 

colonists had before the adoption of the Constitution. If you believe in the Constitution then you believe in the power and duty the Constitution gives to the SCOTUS.  What you are doing here is only following the parts of the Constitution that are convenient to your ideals.  This is a weak and hypocritical argument by you.  

 

The supreme court once ruled that runaway slaves needed to be returned to their owners.

The supreme court fucks up regularly because judges also pander to popular opinion because they do not have the character to explain the exact words of the Constitution to Americans.

 

4.  How would you attempt to stop firearms getting into the wrong hands without restricting the rights of law abiding citizens?

Elect politicians and judges who will follow the Constitution to the letter.  You mean follow the parts of the Constitution “you” agree with and ignore the rest.

 

Follow the Constitution.  The words are clear and explicit.   If you do not like the 

constitution, the remedy is to amend it, not to pass congresses crap or judges crap nor listen to the nra or talking heads nor to overthrow the government.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Held: 

   1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

      (a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

      (b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

 

 

You're part of the militia.   You lose. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Fallopian said:

groans... this whole argument has been discredited long ago. 

 

No moron, the congress panders to the nra and gun nuts.

judges are appointed by legislative and executive branches who pander to the same lynch mob.

judges fuck up regularly.   That is why there are appellate courts.

That is also why the Constitution can be amended.

The wording of the Constitution when construed with the second amendment is clear.

To keep and bear arms, an American MUST be part of a well regulated, disciplined militia 

or military organized by congress.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Golfboy said:

Held: 

   1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

      (a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

      (b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

You're part of the militia.   You lose. 

 

That is all called mental masterbation.

 

It overturns the clear, explicit words and intent of the Constitution, article 1, section 8which says that the PURPOSE of the militia is to repel invasions and suppress insurrections 

and NOT TO ENCOURAGE OR SUPPORT INSURRECTIONS SUCH AS THE CONFEDERACY.

 

So, the idiots on the court got it all fucked up and ass backwards to INTENTIONALLY pander to all the ass hole gun nuts in this country. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, William1444 said:

The wording of the Constitution when construed with the second amendment is clear.

To keep and bear arms, an American MUST be part of a well regulated, disciplined militia 

or military organized by congress.

 

 

You keep saying this, and the Supreme Court keeps telling you that you're wrong.

 

3 minutes ago, Golfboy said:

Held: 

   1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

      (a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

      (b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

 

 

You're part of the militia.   You lose. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Golfboy said:

 

You keep saying this, and the Supreme Court keeps telling you that you're wrong.

 

Is the supreme court infallible?    Were they infallible in ruling to return runaway slaves to 

their owners?

 

Do you know that the Constitution's clear, exact words are what matter, not the moronic 

fly specking of the second amendment?  The second amendment not only must be 

construed with article 1, section 8, but it actually supports it because it talks about 

 a "well regulated militia"   and section 8 says the militia must be disciplined as well 

as organized by congress?

 

And also there is NO reference to any militia being able to overthrow any rogue government 

such as the confederacy used that argument to secede because the union government 

was going to take away the slaves from the lazy ass hole southerners.

 

Gee imagine that, anti-federalists.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, BeAChooser said:

 

You're wrong William.  

 

The Founders were specific in stating that a well regulated militia was the WHOLE of the people ... EVERY MAN ... not just "the national guard".  

 

 

Jefferson said "Every citizen should be a soldier.  This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free state."

 

And I could go on and on and on, quoting them.

 

 

What is the source of this quote? A letter, speech, etc?? Cannot find it and I think it might be bullshit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, William1444 said:

Is the supreme court infallible?    Were they infallible in ruling to return runaway slaves to 

their owners?

 

Do you know that the Constitution's clear, exact words are what matter, not the moronic 

fly specking of the second amendment?  The second amendment not only must be 

construed with article 1, section 8, but it actually supports it because it talks about 

 a "well regulated militia"   and section 8 says the militia must be disciplined as well 

as organized by congress?

 

And also there is NO reference to any militia being able to overthrow any rogue government 

such as the confederacy used that argument to secede because the union government 

was going to take away the slaves from the lazy ass hole southerners.

 

Gee imagine that, anti-federalists.

 

The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what the Constitution says.   You lose, and repeating your error isn't going to change that fact. 

Let me quote again, because I love rubbing this in your face:

 (a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 46 minutes ago, BeAChooser said:

You're wrong William.  

 

The Founders were specific in stating that a well regulated militia was the WHOLE of the people ... EVERY MAN ... not just "the national guard".  

Jefferson said "Every citizen should be a soldier.  This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free state."

And I could go on and on and on, quoting them.

 

You ignore the well regulated militia and misinterpret the part of the necessity for a free state

must be defended by the militia now called the national guard, against the very people who would

destroy this country such as the traitors in the confederacy.

 

And that is what the Constitution calls for a militia, the national guard, to help to suppress insurrections,

such as the state national guards worked with the US Army to suppress the confederacy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Golfboy said:

 

The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what the Constitution says.   You lose, and repeating your error isn't going to change that fact. 

 

The supremes, especially idiots like scalia and thomas are idiots who decide the outcome 

without first reading the Constitution and understanding it.

In their not reading the Constitution, the exact words and requiring military weapons to ONLY 

be in the hands of the national guard and police and sheriffs departments, the supreme court 

pandering to gun nuts are complicit in the murders of children and church goers.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Skans said:

Boy, it's a good thing the Constitution doesn't say what William says it says.  Would you want people like William dictating to you what weapons you can and cannot have?

 

That is the case in the military and you do not have a lot of children and 

churchgoers being murdered on military bases.

Do you like seeing children being murdered in schools and churches with

military weapons?   Or maybe you just want to go back to the old west and

having drunk morons shooting up towns like after a cattle drive.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Veritas101 said:

dishonest hypocritical people make it easy

 

It is not easy to teach common sense to you gun nut morons.

You have a closed mind.   It is filled with shit or with concrete.

There is not much that you could be taught or even to teach you to think.

It is also a common affliction among religious morons and sociopathic liars

like republicans.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, William1444 said:

dishonest hypocritical people make it easy

 

It is not easy to teach common sense to you gun nut morons.

You have a closed mind.   It is filled with shit or with concrete.

There is not much that you could be taught or even to teach you to think.

It is also a common affliction among religious morons and sociopathic liars

like republicans.

The only close minded one here is you when you pretend to support the Constitution and then deny it’s articles that don’t fit your ideals.  You are an embarrassment to the Constitutional debate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...