@shavixmir saidShav makes it about 'him'. what in the hell....
You have absolutely no idea if I’m unarmed and untrained.
But on the point at hand: the article does not state that everyone should be armed. You’re adding that context to suit your small dick and your wanting of compensation.
Anyway, Cap breathes much-needed fresh air into these ridiculous lib diatribes. Note how angry Shav just got, screaming small dick. Geez. Really a stellar debater, he is. And his premise about guns is laughable. Cap proved him wrong, that his interpretation is flat on its face right out of the gate.
Libs get angry. Hey Shav, if Roe is overturned next week, your lot will storm SCOTUS not unlike Jan 6. My question: Will the democrats form a commission as they do for the Jan 6.
@shavixmir saidThe authors of the American Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights were educated men; they wrote very precise English, they chose their words carefully, and they meant what they wrote.
“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.”
I hear a lot of Americans talk about their right to buy and wear and use guns. So, I looked up the text of the amendment. And lo! And behold!
The way I read it, you see, is that it says that the people, in a well regulated ...[text shortened]... reckons the gun lobby has scope creeped the hell out of that amendment and you’ve all been suckered.
When that amendment was written, the USA had no standing army. A citizen militia was all they had to fight off foreign adversaries, who all had professional armies and navies in the region (Britain, France, Spain). The grammatical formulation of the right to keep and bear arms is a conditional -- if, then. Meaning, ONLY SO LONG AS a citizen militia is needed to defend the country, there is a right to keep and bear arms. This right lapsed as soon as America had a professional army and navy.
No other amendment has a similar grammatical preface, explaining WHY the amendment is necessary; for example, the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects ... (i.e. freedom from arbitrary searches and seizures) is not an if-then conditional.
The claim that Americans need weapons to defend themselves against their OWN govt is hogwash. That is clearly not the intent of the amendment.
Switzerland also has no standing army. There is a professional officers corp, but no standing infantry. Hence, a citizen militia with guns (but not ammo) in private hands. Similar situation to America at the close of the 18th c.
@AverageJoe1
I have never been a member of a collegiate debating team. (Were you? At Yale? If so, good for you.) Nor do I think I am obligated to debate – or to respond to – whatever point you think I should. With that said ...
As you can see from this thread, there are (and have been) claims about what a Militia is, or what the Framers meant by a Militia in the 2nd Amendment – which is the issue that Shavixmir raised in the OP. My point (was it not obvious from the context?) was that the Framers understood “Militia” to mean an armed force that could be called up by the Federal government under command of the President. That is what the Constitution shows with the five mentions of “Militia” in the text, before the 2nd Amendment.
During the “Whiskey Rebellion,” such a Militia was called up from Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Maryland and Virginia under President Washington. They – and not the armed rebels – are what the Framers meant by a well-regulated Militia.
And that is what this thread is (or was) about.
27 May 22
1 edit
@averagejoe1 saidOh please, the schmuck was asking for it.
Shav makes it about 'him'. what in the hell....
Anyway, Cap breathes much-needed fresh air into these ridiculous lib diatribes. Note how angry Shav just got, screaming small dick. Geez. Really a stellar debater, he is. And his premise about guns is laughable. Cap proved him wrong, that his interpretation is flat on its face right out of the gate.
Lib ...[text shortened]... US not unlike Jan 6. My question: Will the democrats form a commission as they do for the Jan 6.
Coming back on the forum, again and again, with a dfliirent name.
And the reason you attack me personally on this isusue is that you don’t like the subject. Because you know you are wrong and that you’ve been suckered by the NRA all these years.
And you can’t handle the implications of it.
@moonbus said"The claim that Americans need weapons to defend themselves against their OWN govt is hogwash. That is clearly not the intent of the amendment."
The authors of the American Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights were educated men; they wrote very precise English, they chose their words carefully, and they meant what they wrote.
When that amendment was written, the USA had no standing army. A citizen militia was all they had to fight off foreign adversaries, who all had professional ar ...[text shortened]... with guns (but not ammo) in private hands. Similar situation to America at the close of the 18th c.
That is false. Read this article.
https://thehill.com/opinion/civil-rights/545847-according-to-the-founders-all-federal-gun-restrictions-are/
You might think that the Second Amendment is outdated, and that the Founding Fathers were wrong to be afraid of a tyrannical federal government. But if you want Congress to impose gun restrictions, the only truly constitutional way of doing so is by repealing or altering the Second Amendment, not reinterpreting its meaning to contradict everything the people who passed it into law believed.
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
27 May 22
@zahlanzi saidSo, in the USA it is indeed impossible, just as it is in Somalia. Well, except that there is a slight hope Somalia can come out of its current situation and become a civilised country.
"only a fool thinks guns can be banned,"
Yeh, it's impossible. Except for the times gun control was implemented in civilized countries, it's impossible.
27 May 22
@metal-brain saidBut we’ve already established that it is being misinterpreted to allow the gun manufacturers to make a fortune. If the founding fathers thought it was ok for sick puppies to kill elementary school kids they should have said so.
"The claim that Americans need weapons to defend themselves against their OWN govt is hogwash. That is clearly not the intent of the amendment."
That is false. Read this article.
https://thehill.com/opinion/civil-rights/545847-according-to-the-founders-all-federal-gun-restrictions-are/
You might think that the Second Amendment is outdated, and that the Founding F ...[text shortened]... not reinterpreting its meaning to contradict everything the people who passed it into law believed.
Unless you can prove that you belong to a well regulated militia you do not have a constitutionally based right to bear arms.
@vistesd2 saidI apologize for my response, it was mostly that we should write what we think.....there is too much on the forum where, in these busy times, that we are expected to click on links like we are being tutored. I would like to say that the points made on this issue are saying that the 'militia' then, and our 'law enforcement' now, are adequate to handle things. Preposterous. Simply put, if a cretin is entering my house or grabbing my family, I need to have a gun. Maybe more than one gun. What if my iPhone battery is dead, I cant call the militia!!!!
@AverageJoe1
I have never been a member of a collegiate debating team. (Were you? At Yale? If so, good for you.) Nor do I think I am obligated to debate – or to respond to – whatever point you think I should. With that said ...
As you can see from this thread, there are (and have been) claims about what a Militia is, or what the Framers meant by a Militia in the 2nd A ...[text shortened]... at the Framers meant by a well-regulated Militia.
And that is what this thread is (or was) about.
It is hilarious that libs think, once again, to let the govt save the day! Can we not be independent individuals and have what it takes at our disposal? A gun. To kill someone who breaks into my house? Can you respond to this simple scenario? After all, that is why we have the gun.
No I was not at Yale. But yes, a debating team. I chuckle at the idea of bringing up google on the stage.
27 May 22
@kevcvs57 saidKev, what is it with you libs....about corps 'Make a fortune'?? You got an apple iPhone? They make their fortune off of you, you support their fortune-making. I think in your perfect world, they should make phones but not make money? Or make only the amount of money that the government thinks they should make? Brrrrrrrrrrrrr
But we’ve already established that it is being misinterpreted to allow the gun manufacturers to make a fortune. If the founding fathers thought it was ok for sick puppies to kill elementary school kids they should have said so.
Unless you can prove that you belong to a well regulated militia you do not have a constitutionally based right to bear arms.
27 May 22
@averagejoe1 saidHow likely am I to kill someone with my iPhone Joe, I suppose I could bash their skull in with but a hammer would do a much better job and nothing like as expensive to replace or repair should it get damaged.
Kev, what is it with you libs....about corps 'Make a fortune'?? You got an apple iPhone? They make their fortune off of you, you support their fortune-making. I think in your perfect world, they should make phones but not make money? Or make only the amount of money that the government thinks they should make? Brrrrrrrrrrrrr
Us libs have to speak up against the flagrant profiteering of the gun manufacturers and their corrupt lobbying activities because you illiberal’s are either to stupid too see it or too misanthropic to care.