-->
@fauxlaw
No, it says a well-regulated militia, not an unregulated potential lunatic.
If you could rewrite one part of the U.S. Constitution, what would it be?
Posts
Total:
83
-->
@fauxlaw
He’s a Brit. He’s the reason why we have a 2nd Amendment lol
-->
@RationalMadman
No, it says a well-regulated militia, not an unregulated potential lunatic.
No, the 2A says because of the necessity of a well-regulated militia, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That statement does not prohibit other uses of arms [not restricted to firearms, by the way]. Where and how arms are manufactured are not conditional in the 2A, but it is in State law. My State law has no restriction on those matters of personal manufacture. Get it?
-->
@fauxlaw
Well-regulated militia.
-->
@RationalMadman
Yes, one of several purposes, as the trailing phrase stipulates. The right to keep and bears arms shall not be infringed, either in type or purpose.
-->
@fauxlaw
It's already infringed in purpose. People want gun rights to defend against other fitizens, not against the government. The entire Second Amendment's purpose is not true anymore.
-->
@RationalMadman
We don't have militias anymore? The hell we don't.
-->
@fauxlaw
So your neighbor is in one fo these AnCap movements?
-->
@ILikePie5
It was just as easy to buy a rifle or even a handgun in the United Kingdom not all that long ago as it is in the majority of the United States. They just have a different culture, and didn't fight for their rights. "Gun control" as people currently understand it is a political phenomenon of the 20th century.
-->
@RationalMadman
No. Like I said, a militia is just one purpose of the right to bear arms. Why is that so hard to understand. The Constitution, by intent, does not spell everything out in minutia. The founding fathers expected us to think for ourselves.
-->
@fauxlaw
No. Like I said, a militia is just one purpose of the right to bear arms. Why is that so hard to understand. The Constitution, by intent, does not spell everything out in minutia. The founding fathers expected us to think for ourselves.
the 2nd amendment is quite clear that the right to bear arms is because people needed to be in a militia in order to defend the state. Which at the time it was written was absolutely true. Since we no longer need militias to defend the state, the 2nd amendment no longer serves it's purpose.
-->
@Conway
It was just as easy to buy a rifle or even a handgun in the United Kingdom not all that long ago as it is in the majority of the United States. They just have a different culture, and didn't fight for their rights. "Gun control" as people currently understand it is a political phenomenon of the 20th century.
Sure but the Brits were the ones that were going to Lexington and Concord to seize our guns
-->
@HistoryBuff
Since we no longer need militias to defend the state, the 2nd amendment no longer serves it's purpose.
You clearly don’t live along the border
-->
@HistoryBuff
The National Guard is a militia, as I cited in my #23: 10 U.S.C. § 246
Do a little research. That's what history's for.
Progressives are an interesting lot. Since they fail at every turn to amend the Constitution [take a guess at how many amendments they have proposed since Woodrow Wilson], they simply ignore it. Like declaring the 2A null and void because we no longer need a militia. You claim birthright citizenship, ignoring "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the 14A, section 1. Might begin hearing that Article II is now null and void because we don't need a President. That's coming 2021. You elect Joe Biden, that will become a prog mantra. Mark my words.
-->
@fauxlaw
The National Guard is a militia, as I cited in my #23: 10 U.S.C. § 246Do a little research. That's what history's for.
Does the national guard require members to provide all of their own equipment? Because if not, then why would members of that "militia" need the right to bear arms? If the equipment is provided by the state, then they don't need a right to own a weapon. And then the 2nd amendment doesn't even apply.
-->
@HistoryBuff
Myopia is alive and well. Tell me where the Constitution requires Congress to investigate their navel lint, or anything else. Show me where the 1A says "separation of church and state." Show me the Constitution's enumeration of "separation of powers." Go ahead. Show me. As I told RM, the founding fathers expected us to think and research. We didn't have to be led by the nose in every single little thing over which you get a burr up your ass.
Get this straight. Your "gun control" is not elimination of weapons. You have state laws in every state allowing the use of weapons, and even the personal manufacture of them in many states. Get over it. You eliminate guns, you think that stops killing? I can kill with my thumb. Do you start cutting them off? Use your head. PEOPLE kill people. They use any number of weapons to do it, including tools not ever made to be weapons. Controlling them all is a cat's cradle. Good luck with that.
-->
@fauxlaw
Show me. As I told RM, the founding fathers expected us to think and research. We didn't have to be led by the nose in every single little thing over which you get a burr up your ass.
I couldn't agree more. And since american gun violence is absolutely a problem, we should think and research. And then we can start to impliment common sense gun reform to address the issue.
Get this straight. Your "gun control" is not elimination of weapons.
no, it is the control of weapons. I thought the name was pretty self explanatory.
You have state laws in every state allowing the use of weapons, and even the personal manufacture of them in many states. Get over it.
ok, then we would just need federal laws or even potentially a constitutional change to ensure the gun control laws are uniform.
You eliminate guns, you think that stops killing? I can kill with my thumb.
no, people who want to commit a crime will likely still carry them out. But if you decide to kill your coworkers, the outcome will be very different if you have a gun than if you have a thumb. Gun control isn't about stopping crime, it is about reducing the severity of crime.
PEOPLE kill people. They use any number of weapons to do it, including tools not ever made to be weapons.
absolutely true. But you can kill alot less people when you have a less deadly weapon. Therefore reasonable restrictions on deadly weapons is a logical and very beneficial policy.
-->
@HistoryBuff
Sure, but all of that depends on legislation controlling behavior. When has that ever been successful? The fact of the matter is, democracy and liberty are hard philosophies, which is why people end up abandoning the effort for totalitarianism. But if it was easy, would it be worth it? No. The whole idea of democracy and liberty is to convince people that their rights end at another's nose, having no care for one's station in life. All deserve that consideration and moderation. We're not there, yet. But "controlling" legislation is just another word for totalitarianism, isn't it?
James Madison once said that if men were angels, we would not need government. Do you think angels become angels by control? Nope. We become angels by embracing the rules of liberty and granting them to everybody else. So, why not seek to become angels rather than trying to control everybody? You may argue that's impossible. And that arguement is accepting limitation. Argue for your limitations; they're yours. What about just trying to be angels?
-->
@fauxlaw
Sure, but all of that depends on legislation controlling behavior. When has that ever been successful?
what? that is literally all legislation. Every law is to control behavior.
But "controlling" legislation is just another word for totalitarianism, isn't it?
again, all legislation is "controlling". if it wasn't, what would be the point of the legislation? it would just be a suggestion.
James Madison once said that if men were angels, we would not need government. Do you think angels become angels by control? Nope.
no, angels would always be angels. therefore they wouldn't need government. Humans aren't angels, they never will be angels. that is why they need government.
We become angels by embracing the rules of liberty and granting them to everybody else.
no, humans will never be angels. that is why we create laws to control what a person can and cannot do for the protection of other people and society as a whole.
So, why not seek to become angels rather than trying to control everybody?
because that is a literal impossibility.
You may argue that's impossible. And that arguement is accepting limitation. Argue for your limitations; they're yours. What about just trying to be angels?
you aren't even making sense. you are arguing that if just remove all the rules humans will become perfect. Thousands of years of human history disprove that. When you remove the rules, people kill and rob each other. That is why we build societies with laws.
-->
@HistoryBuff
you aren't even making sense.
No, you become perfect, first; then you do not need rules. That is what Madison said. He did not say you eliminate the rules, and the result is angelic. Now THAT is what does not make sense.
-->
@fauxlaw
No, you become perfect, first; then you do not need rules. That is what Madison said. He did not say you eliminate the rules, and the result is angelic. Now THAT is what does not make sense.
if humans were capable of being perfect, then communism would be the perfect system. However humans are not capable of being perfect. That is why communism doesn't work. And that is why you aren't making any sense.
Eliminating rules just further empowers those with wealth, power and connections as they have more and more ability to use their wealth to the detriment of others.
-->
@HistoryBuff
if humans were capable of being perfect, then communism would be the perfect system
What makes you think communism is the reflection of perfection? That if/then is entirely wrong. It is not a matter of if. Man has the capacity to become perfect. Why would there be a commandment to become perfect if it were not possible to accomplish. Matthew 5 begins the great Sermon on the Mount, which extends two more chapters. Take note of the last verse of Matthew 5. "Be ye therefore perfect..." Only personally imposed limitation prevents it. Limtation of each solitary individual. It is an individual responsibility. But communism eradicates the individual in favor of the state, and that's nonsense. Therefore, the condition of you if/then is also fallacious.
"...it appears as if a famine, a universal war of devastation had cut off the supply of every means of subsistence; industry and commerce seem to be destroyed; and why? Because there is too much civilization, too much means of subsistence, too much industry, too much commerce." That is a virtual duplicate sentiment, and origin of Oba'a, who said "There comes a time when you have made enough money." Both sentiments decry the progress of innovation, industry, and independence and favor a the state. It is the innovation, industry, and independence of the individual that succeeds to the degree that an individual becomes perfect, ultimately. No, no one among us has yet reached that lofty deal, but that is not because the potential is not there, and communism, because it battles those three ideal conditions, individuality of innovation, industry, and independence. Therefore, communism is the bastion of an imperfect system. Money is not an objective, as progressives, socialists, and communists believe, and rail against, as you do, but merely a vehicle to achieve innovation, industry, and independence.