(06-12-2022 07:24 PM)scorpius Wrote:  

(06-12-2022 12:07 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Nothing in this proposed "gun safety" bill would have prevented Uvalde or Parkland or Sandy Hook.

What would have prevented all of them would be 1) better mental health processes for identifying violent nutcases and taking them out of circulation into mental hospitals, and 2) improved physical security around schools and other "gun free zones," including access restrictions and controls enforced by armed security.

Anything that reduces the number of guns per capita in society is going to reduce gun deaths and violence PERIOD. So if this bill accomplishes fewer guns on the street, we have a start to solving the problem. That being said, I bet this is just another Lucy holding the football tactic by Republicans. McConnell, Trump or someone else like the NRA will come out against it, and that will doom the whole thing. Seems to be the go-to tactic for Republicans the past couple decades, on almost all issues of responsible government, including gun control.

BUULSHIT, gun violence is committed by criminals you freakin moron. Criminals DO NOT OBEY LAWS. no laws currently on the books have stopped them, additional laws will not stop them. The only thing that will happen is that LAW ABIDING citizens will suffer as their means of protecting themselves against the criminals who commit the gun violence will be removed.

And the really ironic thing is that fools like you who support these measures will be the first ones to be taken out by your new unopposed regimes.

Nothing in these new proposed laws will reduce the number of guns owned by criminals and cold blooded murderers, NOTHING.

(06-12-2022 07:29 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(06-12-2022 05:57 PM)appst89 Wrote:  

(06-12-2022 05:41 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(06-12-2022 05:38 PM)appst89 Wrote:  

(06-12-2022 05:15 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  You mean like when the militias stopped getting funded by the federal and state governments?

No, that's not what I mean. The 2nd Amendment was to protect the people from the government. Shall not be infringed means exactly what it says.

But yet you leave out half the amendment.

I don't leave anything out. The people are the militia. There is no ambiguity except for those who seek to corrupt the meaning.

Remember when you're soon celebrating the Dobbs decision, your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment and the current importance placed on "shall not be infringed" vs. "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" is worth exactly what 5 Justices agree it is worth in a given case. The Constitution isn't the problem at all, rightwing interpretation of the Constitution is. And fortunately that is much easier to change.

Except that there's NOTHING in the Dobbs decision which impacts ANY constitutional right. Do you understand the term conflate? If you do then you are doing it intentionally thinking that most people won't recognize it.

I've given you some benefit of doubt, no longer. I now see you for what I originally thought you were; a parrot. A leftist America hating parrot spewing talking points. Go pound sand.

(06-12-2022 09:54 PM)maximus Wrote:  

(06-12-2022 09:53 PM)maximus Wrote:  

(06-12-2022 09:53 PM)maximus Wrote:  Hand, feet, and fist control now!!

And Mr X, im not being homophobic.. no matter how much you like fists



Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

Knife control now!

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

Hammer control now!!!



Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

Ban blunt objects now. Blunt object control now!

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

“The right of the people.”

It doesn’t say “the right of the militias”.

It seems you don’t understand how militias were constructed in the late 18th century, even the well regulated ones.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

(06-13-2022 06:20 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(06-12-2022 07:29 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(06-12-2022 05:57 PM)appst89 Wrote:  

(06-12-2022 05:41 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(06-12-2022 05:38 PM)appst89 Wrote:  No, that's not what I mean. The 2nd Amendment was to protect the people from the government. Shall not be infringed means exactly what it says.

But yet you leave out half the amendment.

I don't leave anything out. The people are the militia. There is no ambiguity except for those who seek to corrupt the meaning.

Remember when you're soon celebrating the Dobbs decision, your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment and the current importance placed on "shall not be infringed" vs. "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" is worth exactly what 5 Justices agree it is worth in a given case. The Constitution isn't the problem at all, rightwing interpretation of the Constitution is. And fortunately that is much easier to change.

Except that there's NOTHING in the Dobbs decision which impacts ANY constitutional right. Do you understand the term conflate? If you do then you are doing it intentionally thinking that most people won't recognize it.

I've given you some benefit of doubt, no longer. I now see you for what I originally thought you were; a parrot. A leftist America hating parrot spewing talking points. Go pound sand.

Not quite, there is nothing in the anticipated Dobbs decision which impacts any specifically enumerated Constitutional right. Because abortion isn't mentioned specifically at all, 5 Justices can find or not find it inferred by other text in the Constitution. In the 1973 the Roe Court found it, in 2022 the Dobbs Court apparently plans to disagree and remove that Constitutional right which has existed for the past 49 years. You can certainly disagree that it ever SHOULD have been found to be a Constitutional right at all, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen (and could happen again someday).

An enumerated right, like the beloved 2nd Amendment, is different in that it is specifically mentioned and so obviously always exists and carries some meaning, unless the Constitution is amended. So absent amendment there will always be a right to keep and bear arms, but what that conveys isn't on much firmer ground than Roe. As I've said, there is plenty in the text of the 2nd Amendment for 5 Justices who are willing to overrule precedent to come down anywhere from zero private ownership of firearms allowed outside of state-run militias, to zero restrictions on the ownership of any arms allowed.

(06-13-2022 09:42 AM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(06-13-2022 06:20 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(06-12-2022 07:29 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(06-12-2022 05:57 PM)appst89 Wrote:  

(06-12-2022 05:41 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  But yet you leave out half the amendment.

I don't leave anything out. The people are the militia. There is no ambiguity except for those who seek to corrupt the meaning.

Remember when you're soon celebrating the Dobbs decision, your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment and the current importance placed on "shall not be infringed" vs. "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" is worth exactly what 5 Justices agree it is worth in a given case. The Constitution isn't the problem at all, rightwing interpretation of the Constitution is. And fortunately that is much easier to change.

Except that there's NOTHING in the Dobbs decision which impacts ANY constitutional right. Do you understand the term conflate? If you do then you are doing it intentionally thinking that most people won't recognize it.

I've given you some benefit of doubt, no longer. I now see you for what I originally thought you were; a parrot. A leftist America hating parrot spewing talking points. Go pound sand.

Not quite, there is nothing in the anticipated Dobbs decision which impacts any specifically enumerated Constitutional right. Because abortion isn't mentioned specifically at all, 5 Justices can find or not find it inferred by other text in the Constitution. In the 1973 the Roe Court found it, in 2022 the Dobbs Court apparently plans to disagree and remove that Constitutional right which has existed for the past 49 years. You can certainly disagree that it ever SHOULD have been found to be a Constitutional right at all, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen (and could happen again someday).

An enumerated right, like the beloved 2nd Amendment, is different in that it is specifically mentioned and so obviously always exists and carries some meaning, unless the Constitution is amended. So absent amendment there will always be a right to keep and bear arms, but what that conveys isn't on much firmer ground than Roe. As I've said, there is plenty in the text of the 2nd Amendment for 5 Justices who are willing to overrule precedent to come down anywhere from zero private ownership of firearms allowed outside of state-run militias, to zero restrictions on the ownership of any arms allowed.

SAY IT!

COWARD

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

(06-13-2022 09:42 AM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(06-13-2022 06:20 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(06-12-2022 07:29 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(06-12-2022 05:57 PM)appst89 Wrote:  

(06-12-2022 05:41 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  But yet you leave out half the amendment.

I don't leave anything out. The people are the militia. There is no ambiguity except for those who seek to corrupt the meaning.

Remember when you're soon celebrating the Dobbs decision, your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment and the current importance placed on "shall not be infringed" vs. "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" is worth exactly what 5 Justices agree it is worth in a given case. The Constitution isn't the problem at all, rightwing interpretation of the Constitution is. And fortunately that is much easier to change.

Except that there's NOTHING in the Dobbs decision which impacts ANY constitutional right. Do you understand the term conflate? If you do then you are doing it intentionally thinking that most people won't recognize it.

I've given you some benefit of doubt, no longer. I now see you for what I originally thought you were; a parrot. A leftist America hating parrot spewing talking points. Go pound sand.

Not quite, there is nothing in the anticipated Dobbs decision which impacts any specifically enumerated Constitutional right. Because abortion isn't mentioned specifically at all, 5 Justices can find or not find it inferred by other text in the Constitution. In the 1973 the Roe Court found it, in 2022 the Dobbs Court apparently plans to disagree and remove that Constitutional right which has existed for the past 49 years. You can certainly disagree that it ever SHOULD have been found to be a Constitutional right at all, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen (and could happen again someday).

An enumerated right, like the beloved 2nd Amendment, is different in that it is specifically mentioned and so obviously always exists and carries some meaning, unless the Constitution is amended. So absent amendment there will always be a right to keep and bear arms, but what that conveys isn't on much firmer ground than Roe. As I've said, there is plenty in the text of the 2nd Amendment for 5 Justices who are willing to overrule precedent to come down anywhere from zero private ownership of firearms allowed outside of state-run militias, to zero restrictions on the ownership of any arms allowed.

You're wrong!

Sure, 5 Liberal biased Supreme Court Justices COULD rule to erode the 2nd Amendment, but that would have nothing to do with the Constitution. Lord knows we have seen Liberal biased judges make some bazar political biased rulings recently - many of which have been struck down by higher courts after the fact.

The Constitution is clearly written and in full support of the people's right to own guns - and it is stated that the right "shall not be infringed".

Go back and read the links I posted on post #68 and you will see that there really isn't anything ambiguous about the 2nd Amendment to be interpreted. The civilians (i.e. "people") ARE the "militia" referenced in the sentence.

Gun Rights Groups Respond to Senators’ Bipartisan Gun Control Framework

Quote:The National Rifle Association (NRA) and Gun Owners of America (GOA) both issued statements Sunday after a bipartisan group of senators announced they’d reached an agreement on a gun control and safety package.

“Here we go again, Republican legislators compromising your rights and getting nothing in return,” GOA wrote in a Twitter post, referring to proposals in the framework deal. “Federal dollars to bribe your state legislators into enacting unconstitutional ‘red flag’ laws, which could allow a court to seize your weapons, without any due process, simply based on anonymous tips.”

It added that the bill would entail “wait periods and extensive review for those under 21 seeking to exercise their Second Amendment rights … we will not allow the government to make those who can vote and fight our wars second class citizens.”

Wait periods and extensive review for those under 21 seeking to exercise their Second Amendment rights. We will not allow the government to make those who can vote and fight our wars second class citizens.

— Gun Owners of America (@GunOwners) June 12, 2022
The proposal, which has the backing of 10 Republicans in the Senate, includes initiatives to support state crisis intervention orders, an enhanced review process for gun buyers under the age of 21, expansions on various mental health programs, a ban on straw purchases, and other measures.

Notably, the framework bill includes a red flag provision giving “resources to states and tribes to create and administer laws that help ensure deadly weapons are kept out of the hands of individuals whom a court has determined to be a significant danger to themselves or others,” according to a news release from the senators on Sunday.

The NRA, meanwhile, said that it is “committed to real solutions to help stop violence in our communities. We encourage our elected officials to provide more resources to secure our schools, fix to our severely broken mental health system and support law enforcement,” according to a statement released to Fox News.

“As is our policy, the NRA does not take positions on ‘frameworks’. We will make our position known when the full text of the bill is available for review,” the NRA added.

But overall, the group will “continue to oppose any effort to insert gun control policies, initiatives that override constitutional due process protections and efforts to deprive law-abiding citizens of their fundamental right to protect themselves and their loved ones into this or any other legislation,” the statement continued.

Here's What Mitch McConnell's Ten Gun Control RINOs Have in Common

Quote:Many Republicans were shocked Sunday when 20 Senators announced they'd put together "bipartisan" gun control legislation that would be supported by all 50 Democrats and the 10 Republicans necessary to defeat the filibuster. But some of us had expected this because we know how Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell works. He's been pushing for gun control for decades and now, in the wake of mass murders across the country, it looks like he's finally getting it.

Ever the master manipulator, McConnell didn't lean on some of his usual suspects of reliable Uniparty members such as Lisa Murkowski. Instead, he pulled from a very specific list of RINOs who all had one trait in common. As Daniel Horowitz noted:

They made sure that no Republican involved in the gun control crap is in cycle. This is what a party that hates you does. But you will continue to be fooled by Republicans and Fox News and enjoy the show

Any Republican who votes for the bill will get toasted during the midterm elections. McConnell knows this. He's fully aware that the vast majority of conservatives oppose gun control and the GOP will need conservatives on election day if they have any hopes of retaking control of the Senate.

Here are the RINOs who have betrayed the party and the nation on orders from McConnell:

John Cornyn

Thom Tillis 20

Roy Blunt

Richard Burr

Bill Cassidy

Susan Collins

Lindsey Graham

Rob Portman

Mitt Romney

Pat Toomey

Four of them — Tillis, Blunt, Burr, Portman, and Toomey — are all retiring. The rest will have 2-4 years to make voters in their state forget their betrayal.

Some think Mitch McConnell's sway over RINO Senators is limited to election control, but it's far worse than that. He holds sway over their futures well beyond Capitol Hill, which is why any McConnell-endorse Republican should be booted.

McConnell is worthless. He and McCarthy between them couldn't lead a sex addict to a whorehouse.

And I'm counting on republicans to save us from the socialist/communist democrats. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, but my enemies need better enemies.

Instead of trying to compromise with democrats, republicans need to come up with their own proposal based on common sense--the common sense that says that once a nutcase with a gun gets inside a school, it doesn't really matter what kind of gun he/she uses, lots of folks are going to die. And the idea that nutcases can be mainstreamed into society is ludicrous.

So to stop mass shootings, 1) restore mental hospitals and get nutcases out of circulation, and 2) institute controlled access enforced by armed security at every school.

Controlled opposition.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

(06-13-2022 12:14 AM)ODU BBALL Wrote:  

(06-12-2022 09:31 PM)scorpius Wrote:  

(06-12-2022 08:32 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(06-12-2022 08:25 PM)appst89 Wrote:  

(06-12-2022 08:12 PM)scorpius Wrote:  Conservatives only use the strict constructionist argument when it's convenient to them. Otherwise they avoid the judicial philosophy as much as liberals. That's one of the main reasons why it's such a dangerous judicial philosophy. It completely takes empathy out of the equation when it clashes with the politics of the judge. This is crazy since this applies to the courts which are supposed to take empathy into account to fill in any vagueness of the law.

There is a method to amend the Constitution. Otherwise, it means what it says.

Cling to your fantasy that there is nothing ambiguous in the 2nd Amendment all you like, there is plenty there for 5 willing Justices to interpret that can land anywhere from zero private gun ownership allowed outside of state-run militias to zero restrictions on arms allowed whatsoever.

This is another example of where conservatives avoid the strict constructionist argument. Or rather avoid the actual text of the Constitution in favor of the text of something like the Federalist papers, which is NOT the Constitution.

The 2nd Amendment 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 and Republicans in general wants everyone to simply forget the "well regulated Militia" part. The fact it is the first part of the sentence, obviously suggests it's the purpose or the "meat" of the amendment.

In my opinion, the creation of our military fullfills the purpose of the 2nd amendment as strictly written. The government and thus the military is owned and controlled by "We the People". If that is not "the people" keeping and bearing Arms as a well regulated militia for the security of a free state, I don't know what is. Any notion of being allowed to own a gun personally should fall under word "liberty" in the 14th amendment now.

This photo was taken in the lobby of the NRA's DC lobbying headquarters. That is clear deception right when you walk into the door.

Thankfully, the Constitution of the United States of America isn't open to or changed by your opinion. The words say what they say and are very clearly written in English. Understand the words, and you'll understand the message.

Back at the time the Constitution was written, the new country had just defeated the British using the Continental ARMY as well as the civilian Militia. In other words, Thomas Jefferson was unquestionably aware of the difference between the two and made NO mistake in his use of the word Militia along with the words "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” He wanted the civilian population to forever be allowed to "keep and bear Arms". Those civilians make up the militias. Had he been talking about the formal military he would have stated it as such with reference to a Continental Army, or something similar to that (not a civilian Militia bearing arms). See the 1st link below for clarity and to learn something.

There was even an armed, civilian, Militia in WWII. See the 2nd link below for clarity and to learn something.

https://allthingsliberty.com/2013/12/mil...tinentals/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_Guard...rld%20War.

The text says "well regulated militia", NOT "civilian militia". Yeah sure conservatives like to pass it off as just meaning a militia that is fit to fight, but they run from the fact that if the intent truly was for no government involvement after hinting at such by using that phrase, the word "civilian" certainly would have been added to avoid misunderstanding. But I guess common sense doesn't work for you. Regardless, the fact remains, we as citizens do in fact own the government, a part of which is the well regulated militias of the state and national guards/military. That is what the amendment guarantees. It basically says either the government will regulate this for the people or in absence of that, the population will regulate it directly. Either way, it must be done through the right to keep and bare arms, either by the government (the people indirectly) or through the people directly. Thus the amendment guarantees that "arms" can not be abolished from both government and civilian populations, which makes sense.

It's ALL about protecting ourselves from foreign invaders, NOT from ourselves. The democratic principles laid out in the Constitution is what protects us from ourselves by giving us ownership of it. To imply otherwise, is to deny the very democratic principles within it. If ever like say a Trump-type took over and managed to re-interpret or replace the Constitution in such a way to get rid of these democratic principles, well it would no longer by the same government. It might as well be a foreign invader. Thus whatever was keeping and bearing arms, whether it's citizens directly or the state controlled ones, they would then have the responsibility to fight for democracy just like we did in the Revolutionary War. If they didn't, then it was just meant to be.

If you doubt we own the government, just read the Preamble to the Constitution. "We the People..do ordain and establish this Constitution.." Last I checked, if you establish something, it's yours. You keep it and bear it, whether you like it or not, unless you sell it or remove it. That only happens to those who renounce their citizenship.

(06-13-2022 10:57 AM)ODU BBALL Wrote:  Sure, 5 Liberal biased Supreme Court Justices COULD rule to erode the 2nd Amendment, but that would have nothing to do with the Constitution. Lord knows we have seen Liberal biased judges make some bazar political biased rulings recently - many of which have been struck down by higher courts after the fact.

So it's okay if 5 Conservative biased Justices rule to interpret the 2nd Amendment. That interpretation is the Constitution, right? But this doesn't apply if they are liberal. Where is this distinction written in the Constitution? Link? I wasn't aware the Constitution distinctly excluded liberal interpretations of it's text. Not even the founders or todays mainstream Republicans believe that. Only a terrorist would say something like that.

(06-13-2022 02:23 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  McConnell is worthless. He and McCarthy between them couldn't lead a sex addict to a whorehouse.

And I'm counting on republicans to save us from the socialist/communist democrats. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, but my enemies need better enemies.

Instead of trying to compromise with democrats, republicans need to come up with their own proposal based on common sense--the common sense that says that once a nutcase with a gun gets inside a school, it doesn't really matter what kind of gun he/she uses, lots of folks are going to die. And the idea that nutcases can be mainstreamed into society is ludicrous.

So to stop mass shootings, 1) restore mental hospitals and get nutcases out of circulation, and 2) institute controlled access enforced by armed security at every school.

So in other words you want our schools ran quite literally like prisons. They are already like prisons to kids, but this would just put pants on it. Barbed wire chain linked fensing, metal detectors everywhere, guards with AK47's on patrol, AK47 proudly displayed above the chalkboard instead of a paddle, teachers harnessing AK47's while teaching, wardens will be hired and then slowly, but surely integrated into the school punishment system. Sounds like a nightmare. And THAT is your solution?! Do you even realize what you're suggesting for kids?!

And this is even more particularly disturbing giving the fact the government would be running these operations. Or are you suggesting civilians by the ones in charge of this while "keeping and bearing" their AK47's? So basically you want terrorists protecting our kids. I wouldn't send my kid anywhere near that. And I doubt you would either. So why even suggest it?

(06-14-2022 01:28 AM)scorpius Wrote:  

(06-13-2022 12:14 AM)ODU BBALL Wrote:  

(06-12-2022 09:31 PM)scorpius Wrote:  

(06-12-2022 08:32 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(06-12-2022 08:25 PM)appst89 Wrote:  There is a method to amend the Constitution. Otherwise, it means what it says.

Cling to your fantasy that there is nothing ambiguous in the 2nd Amendment all you like, there is plenty there for 5 willing Justices to interpret that can land anywhere from zero private gun ownership allowed outside of state-run militias to zero restrictions on arms allowed whatsoever.

This is another example of where conservatives avoid the strict constructionist argument. Or rather avoid the actual text of the Constitution in favor of the text of something like the Federalist papers, which is NOT the Constitution.

The 2nd Amendment 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 and Republicans in general wants everyone to simply forget the "well regulated Militia" part. The fact it is the first part of the sentence, obviously suggests it's the purpose or the "meat" of the amendment.

In my opinion, the creation of our military fullfills the purpose of the 2nd amendment as strictly written. The government and thus the military is owned and controlled by "We the People". If that is not "the people" keeping and bearing Arms as a well regulated militia for the security of a free state, I don't know what is. Any notion of being allowed to own a gun personally should fall under word "liberty" in the 14th amendment now.

This photo was taken in the lobby of the NRA's DC lobbying headquarters. That is clear deception right when you walk into the door.

Thankfully, the Constitution of the United States of America isn't open to or changed by your opinion. The words say what they say and are very clearly written in English. Understand the words, and you'll understand the message.

Back at the time the Constitution was written, the new country had just defeated the British using the Continental ARMY as well as the civilian Militia. In other words, Thomas Jefferson was unquestionably aware of the difference between the two and made NO mistake in his use of the word Militia along with the words "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” He wanted the civilian population to forever be allowed to "keep and bear Arms". Those civilians make up the militias. Had he been talking about the formal military he would have stated it as such with reference to a Continental Army, or something similar to that (not a civilian Militia bearing arms). See the 1st link below for clarity and to learn something.

There was even an armed, civilian, Militia in WWII. See the 2nd link below for clarity and to learn something.

https://allthingsliberty.com/2013/12/mil...tinentals/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_Guard...rld%20War.

The text says "well regulated militia", NOT "civilian militia". Yeah sure conservatives like to pass it off as just meaning a militia that is fit to fight, but they run from the fact that if the intent truly was for no government involvement after hinting at such by using that phrase, the word "civilian" certainly would have been added to avoid misunderstanding. But I guess common sense doesn't work for you. Regardless, the fact remains, we as citizens do in fact own the government, a part of which is the well regulated militias of the state and national guards/military. That is what the amendment guarantees. It basically says either the government will regulate this for the people or in absence of that, the population will regulate it directly. Either way, it must be done through the right to keep and bare arms, either by the government (the people indirectly) or through the people directly. Thus the amendment guarantees that "arms" can not be abolished from both government and civilian populations, which makes sense.

It's ALL about protecting ourselves from foreign invaders, NOT from ourselves. The democratic principles laid out in the Constitution is what protects us from ourselves by giving us ownership of it. To imply otherwise, is to deny the very democratic principles within it. If ever like say a Trump-type took over and managed to re-interpret or replace the Constitution in such a way to get rid of these democratic principles, well it would no longer by the same government. It might as well be a foreign invader. Thus whatever was keeping and bearing arms, whether it's citizens directly or the state controlled ones, they would then have the responsibility to fight for democracy just like we did in the Revolutionary War. If they didn't, then it was just meant to be.

If you doubt we own the government, just read the Preamble to the Constitution. "We the People..do ordain and establish this Constitution.." Last I checked, if you establish something, it's yours. You keep it and bear it, whether you like it or not, unless you sell it or remove it. That only happens to those who renounce their citizenship.

12 year-old gibberish at its finest.

(06-14-2022 01:28 AM)scorpius Wrote:  

(06-13-2022 12:14 AM)ODU BBALL Wrote:  

(06-12-2022 09:31 PM)scorpius Wrote:  

(06-12-2022 08:32 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(06-12-2022 08:25 PM)appst89 Wrote:  There is a method to amend the Constitution. Otherwise, it means what it says.

Cling to your fantasy that there is nothing ambiguous in the 2nd Amendment all you like, there is plenty there for 5 willing Justices to interpret that can land anywhere from zero private gun ownership allowed outside of state-run militias to zero restrictions on arms allowed whatsoever.

This is another example of where conservatives avoid the strict constructionist argument. Or rather avoid the actual text of the Constitution in favor of the text of something like the Federalist papers, which is NOT the Constitution.

The 2nd Amendment 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 and Republicans in general wants everyone to simply forget the "well regulated Militia" part. The fact it is the first part of the sentence, obviously suggests it's the purpose or the "meat" of the amendment.

In my opinion, the creation of our military fullfills the purpose of the 2nd amendment as strictly written. The government and thus the military is owned and controlled by "We the People". If that is not "the people" keeping and bearing Arms as a well regulated militia for the security of a free state, I don't know what is. Any notion of being allowed to own a gun personally should fall under word "liberty" in the 14th amendment now.

This photo was taken in the lobby of the NRA's DC lobbying headquarters. That is clear deception right when you walk into the door.

Thankfully, the Constitution of the United States of America isn't open to or changed by your opinion. The words say what they say and are very clearly written in English. Understand the words, and you'll understand the message.

Back at the time the Constitution was written, the new country had just defeated the British using the Continental ARMY as well as the civilian Militia. In other words, Thomas Jefferson was unquestionably aware of the difference between the two and made NO mistake in his use of the word Militia along with the words "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” He wanted the civilian population to forever be allowed to "keep and bear Arms". Those civilians make up the militias. Had he been talking about the formal military he would have stated it as such with reference to a Continental Army, or something similar to that (not a civilian Militia bearing arms). See the 1st link below for clarity and to learn something.

There was even an armed, civilian, Militia in WWII. See the 2nd link below for clarity and to learn something.

https://allthingsliberty.com/2013/12/mil...tinentals/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_Guard...rld%20War.

The text says "well regulated militia", NOT "civilian militia". Yeah sure conservatives like to pass it off as just meaning a militia that is fit to fight, but they run from the fact that if the intent truly was for no government involvement after hinting at such by using that phrase, the word "civilian" certainly would have been added to avoid misunderstanding. But I guess common sense doesn't work for you. Regardless, the fact remains, we as citizens do in fact own the government, a part of which is the well regulated militias of the state and national guards/military. That is what the amendment guarantees. It basically says either the government will regulate this for the people or in absence of that, the population will regulate it directly. Either way, it must be done through the right to keep and bare arms, either by the government (the people indirectly) or through the people directly. Thus the amendment guarantees that "arms" can not be abolished from both government and civilian populations, which makes sense.

It's ALL about protecting ourselves from foreign invaders, NOT from ourselves. The democratic principles laid out in the Constitution is what protects us from ourselves by giving us ownership of it. To imply otherwise, is to deny the very democratic principles within it. If ever like say a Trump-type took over and managed to re-interpret or replace the Constitution in such a way to get rid of these democratic principles, well it would no longer by the same government. It might as well be a foreign invader. Thus whatever was keeping and bearing arms, whether it's citizens directly or the state controlled ones, they would then have the responsibility to fight for democracy just like we did in the Revolutionary War. If they didn't, then it was just meant to be.

If you doubt we own the government, just read the Preamble to the Constitution. "We the People..do ordain and establish this Constitution.." Last I checked, if you establish something, it's yours. You keep it and bear it, whether you like it or not, unless you sell it or remove it. That only happens to those who renounce their citizenship.

They didn't say "civilian" because they had just said "militia". They are ONE AND THE SAME THING. They had just finished fighting a war where they used MILITIA and the CONTINENTAL ARMY - two totally different entities. One is civilian and the other is government controlled.

It was a well-known fact then just like it is today that a militia is made up of civilians. Geez! At least watch the movie - The Patriot - and you can MAYBE get a grasp of what the militia was made up of, and the difference between them and the government's Continental Army.

Lastly, it doesn't matter what the political affiliation of the Supreme court justices is - unless they simply want to be dishonest and play politics. The 2nd Amendment is written so clearly that even an idiot *should* be able to understand it's meaning without any questions. You're living proof that there is always going to be "that guy" though.

As of now I'm done with you on this topic as I don't want to fall victim to the old adage - "If you're arguing with a fool then so are they".

https://allthingsliberty.com/2013/12/mil...tinentals/

(06-14-2022 02:14 AM)scorpius Wrote:  So in other words you want our schools ran quite literally like prisons. They are already like prisons to kids, but this would just put pants on it. Barbed wire chain linked fensing, metal detectors everywhere, guards with AK47's on patrol, AK47 proudly displayed above the chalkboard instead of a paddle, teachers harnessing AK47's while teaching, wardens will be hired and then slowly, but surely integrated into the school punishment system. Sounds like a nightmare. And THAT is your solution?! Do you even realize what you're suggesting for kids?!
And this is even more particularly disturbing giving the fact the government would be running these operations. Or are you suggesting civilians by the ones in charge of this while "keeping and bearing" their AK47's? So basically you want terrorists protecting our kids. I wouldn't send my kid anywhere near that. And I doubt you would either. So why even suggest it?

Memo to self: It is impossible to engage in reasonable discussion with an idiot.

(06-14-2022 01:28 AM)scorpius Wrote:  The text says "well regulated militia", NOT "civilian militia". Yeah sure conservatives like to pass it off as just meaning a militia that is fit to fight, but they run from the fact that if the intent truly was for no government involvement after hinting at such by using that phrase, the word "civilian" certainly would have been added to avoid misunderstanding.

Wrong. "Well-regulated" in the 1700s up to early 1900s had no association with the modern root "regulate" or as you with to imply, "regulation". In fact, the last words of the second amendment 'shall not be infringed', is a very clear counterargument to using the modern definition of regulate.

(06-14-2022 01:28 AM)scorpius Wrote:  But I guess common sense doesn't work for you. Regardless, the fact remains, we as citizens do in fact own the government, a part of which is the well regulated militias of the state and national guards/military. That is what the amendment guarantees. It basically says either the government will regulate this for the people or in absence of that, the population will regulate it directly. Either way, it must be done through the right to keep and bare arms, either by the government (the people indirectly) or through the people directly. Thus the amendment guarantees that "arms" can not be abolished from both government and civilian populations, which makes sense.

Wrong. Misuse of the word "regulate" once again. Also ignorant of the common held opinion of soldiers and armies at the time of it's writing. Soldiers and armies were commonly used to oppress common people, raised by the governments rich enough and powerful enough to conscript soldiers enforce their will on people. The is absolutely no legitimate take on the second amendment that provides the federal government oversight of individual (or state militia's) arms.

(06-14-2022 01:28 AM)scorpius Wrote:  It's ALL about protecting ourselves from foreign invaders, NOT from ourselves. The democratic principles laid out in the Constitution is what protects us from ourselves by giving us ownership of it. To imply otherwise, is to deny the very democratic principles within it. If ever like say a Trump-type took over and managed to re-interpret or replace the Constitution in such a way to get rid of these democratic principles, well it would no longer by the same government. It might as well be a foreign invader. Thus whatever was keeping and bearing arms, whether it's citizens directly or the state controlled ones, they would then have the responsibility to fight for democracy just like we did in the Revolutionary War. If they didn't, then it was just meant to be.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Have you ever even sat in a civics class? A flunkie sleeping on the closed book has a better understanding of the second amendment (and constitution in general) through osmosis than you do.

(06-14-2022 01:28 AM)scorpius Wrote:  If you doubt we own the government, just read the Preamble to the Constitution. "We the People..do ordain and establish this Constitution.." Last I checked, if you establish something, it's yours. You keep it and bear it, whether you like it or not, unless you sell it or remove it. That only happens to those who renounce their citizenship.

If only you understood what the Constitution really does...

Geopolitical analyst George Friedman says that the USA is in the midst of a struggle between elite experts and common sense. The left favors the elite experts, and in fact supports having those experts rule every minute aspect of our lives. These experts are closely connected with academia, and thus their approach is largely theoretical. In theory, theory works well in practice; in practice, it doesn't. Therefore I am firmly on the side of common sense, which takes a more practical approach.

Since democrats seem firmly committed to becoming the party of elite experts, I want republicans to become the party of common sense. Unfortunately, they are resisting mightily, and so far successfully.

Tucker: They are lying about red flag laws

(06-14-2022 07:08 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Geopolitical analyst George Friedman says that the USA is in the midst of a struggle between elite experts and common sense. The left favors the elite experts, and in fact supports having those experts rule every minute aspect of our lives. These experts are closely connected with academia, and thus their approach is largely theoretical. In theory, theory works well in practice; in practice, it doesn't. Therefore I am firmly on the side of common sense, which takes a more practical approach.

Since democrats seem firmly committed to becoming the party of elite experts, I want republicans to become the party of common sense. Unfortunately, they are resisting mightily, and so far successfully.

No need to be conflicted about this. There currently is no gray area. There's either the nutty side that is in power and rapidly ruining the country today, or the other side that wants to go in the opposite direction in pretty much all of the most meaningful things - i.e. immigration, oil production & energy independence, Constitutional rights, inflation, police & crime, education, national security, etc..

If you're looking for everything to be perfect, you're always going to be disappointed. It never will be.