Stop and Frisk

[rushmc 23]

quade

Quote

You cant change what they stated during the debate of the 2nd Amendment

You do realize that a debate about something is something different than the thing itself; no?

Ah yes
I do
and their debate was about the 2nd amendment (as written today)

Ours is about the intent of said amendment

Which is very very clear

As demostrated by the quotes I have provided for you

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

The actual wording of the Constitution is all that counts.

And that is why I have provided just a small portion of the quotes indicating what those actual words mean

So the meaning can not be bastardized by those like you who would pick and chose who is armed and who is not

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Read the 2nd Amendment. Nowhere does it mention the reason being an overthrow of THIS government, but rather a defense of it.

Actually it says "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."

Nowhere in there does it *exclude* internal threats. It mentions threats and that includes internal threats.

US v Cruikshank (1875):
"[t]he right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendment means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government."

McDonald V Chicago the SC ruled that the State can't restrict the right, just like the Federal Govt can't.... Why would the citizens need to be protected from the Govt taking something if the only reason was to support the Govt?

In Heller:
"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"

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

All of it OPINION.

None of it legally codified

The 2nd is legally codified. And nowhere does it exclude internal threats.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state..."

Doesn't mention defending the people.

The right of ----> THE PEOPLE<----- to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

If you read any of Blackstone you would see what was written was written clear as a bell. The Founders assumed that people would be able to understand basic English as written.

"The right of the PEOPLE (citizens) to KEEP (own) and BEAR (carry) arms shall NOT BE INFRINGED".

[rushmc 23]

DaVinci

Quote

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state..."

Doesn't mention defending the people.

The right of ----> THE PEOPLE<----- to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

If you read any of Blackstone you would see what was written was written clear as a bell. The Founders assumed that people would be able to understand basic English as written.

"The right of the PEOPLE (citizens) to KEEP (own) and BEAR (carry) arms shall NOT BE INFRINGED".

I took some time a few years back and read the Federalist Papers
I still have the link to a college library somewhere

Anyway

When I first started, I struggled a bit with the they were written.
But, it did not take me long to get a feel for that style. And once I got more comfortable reading them, I came to respect, enjoy and appreciate that how language was written back then

It is just beautiful

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

When I first started, I struggled a bit with the they were written.
But, it did not take me long to get a feel for that style. And once I got more comfortable reading them, I came to respect, enjoy and appreciate that how language was written back then

It is just beautiful

Agreed.

What amazes me is how people who swear the 1st, 4th etc all are individual rights try to claim that the 2nd is somehow a collective right.

And it amazes me how normally smart people refuse to understand basic, simple English. "Shall not be infringed" must mean something else to them... But they would not accept those same infringements on other rights.

[quade 4]

DaVinci

What amazes me is how people who swear the 1st, 4th etc all are individual rights try to claim that the 2nd is somehow a collective right.

What amazes me is how the word "militia" is somehow interpreted as "an individual."

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rushmc 23]

quade

***What amazes me is how people who swear the 1st, 4th etc all are individual rights try to claim that the 2nd is somehow a collective right.

What amazes me is how the word "militia" is somehow interpreted as "an individual."

Even the Supreme Court answered that one Paul
Where they state that the 2nd Amendment refers to individual ownership

And in the context of the amendment and the quotes I posted for you along with the link, it is very very very very clear that militia in used referring to the people

Who, when armed, are necessary to a free state (not THE free state)

Arming the population WAS intended to keep people free from a tyrannical government

Now, you may not like this FACT

But it is indeed fact

You can read the arguments set forth by the founders who were debating this amendment.
Those arguments are in no way ambiguous

The context you use is an attempt at bastardization to get your way
And at best, disingenuous

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kelpdiver 2]

rushmc

The context you use is an attempt at bastardization to get your way
And at best, disingenuous

you're too kind. It's more outright lying.

Same with those who insist on using the wrong definition of regulated and pretending to be amazed that there's any debate on it.

[quade 4]

rushmc

You can read the arguments set forth by the founders who were debating this amendment.
Those arguments are in no way ambiguous

Of course they are! You simply choose to read ONE side of the argument and see it as unambiguous. If it was so unambiguous, there wouldn't have been a debate.

It's just like the Supreme Court decisions interpreting the 2nd as an individual right. You make it sound as if that was a unanimous decision without any dissent.

THAT, my friend, is the lie.

I can nearly guarantee if the decision was 5-4 in the other direction you'd be calling for the overthrow of the Supreme Court.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kallend 2,148]

DaVinci

Quote

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state..."

Doesn't mention defending the people.

The right of ----> THE PEOPLE<----- to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

If you read any of Blackstone you would see what was written was written clear as a bell. The Founders assumed that people would be able to understand basic English as written.

"The right of the PEOPLE (citizens) to KEEP (own) and BEAR (carry) arms shall NOT BE INFRINGED".

Still doesn't mention defending the people. It gives a right to the people in order to secure the free state.

Jeez - don't they teach reading anymore?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kelpdiver 2]

kallend

***

Quote

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state..."

Doesn't mention defending the people.

The right of ----> THE PEOPLE<----- to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

If you read any of Blackstone you would see what was written was written clear as a bell. The Founders assumed that people would be able to understand basic English as written.

"The right of the PEOPLE (citizens) to KEEP (own) and BEAR (carry) arms shall NOT BE INFRINGED".

Still doesn't mention defending the people. It gives a right to the people in order to secure the free state.

Jeez - don't they teach reading anymore?

proper reading would tell you that this right is not there solely to secure the free state. Clearly Heller and the Court said otherwise as well.

[quade 4]

Yes. A 5-4 decision is clear . . . as mud.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Gravitymaster 0]

DanG

Quote

Oh my . . . you want to outlaw freedom of association?

Let's be perfectly clear here, that's what was wrong with the McCarthy hearings. It's also why groups such as the KKK still exist, deplorable as they are.

It's also why the NRA still exists.

Be careful what you wish for.

https://en.wikipedia.org/...eedom_of_association

This thread is the perfect demonstration that to some people, the only valuable amendment is the 2nd. I'd like to note that those people self-identify as conservatives.

Then you would be completely wrong. Martial Law can be imposed for a variety of reasons including civil unrest like was the case after Hurricane Katrina. If this is a National Crisis on as massive a scale as some of the left wingers claim it is, I would think they would be supportive of anything that would save lives. After all, most of the honest people who are forced to live among this slime would be supportive of such an action and the only ones who would be inconvenienced would be the criminals who had background checks run. To me this is more productive and legal than taking away the rights of law abiding citizens and requiring registration of guns by those citizens.

Odd how left wingers want lax border security, no requirement to have a valid I.D to vote and oppose anything that might inconvenience criminals but have no problem trampling over the rights of those who live by society's rules.

[kallend 2,148]

kelpdiver

******

Quote

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state..."

Doesn't mention defending the people.

The right of ----> THE PEOPLE<----- to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

If you read any of Blackstone you would see what was written was written clear as a bell. The Founders assumed that people would be able to understand basic English as written.

"The right of the PEOPLE (citizens) to KEEP (own) and BEAR (carry) arms shall NOT BE INFRINGED".

Still doesn't mention defending the people. It gives a right to the people in order to secure the free state.

Jeez - don't they teach reading anymore?

proper reading would tell you that this right is not there solely to secure the free state. Clearly Heller and the Court said otherwise as well.

If you're going to invoke a court OPINION then you should also remember that the same court said the 2nd is not an unlimited right etc. etc. etc.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

quade

***You can read the arguments set forth by the founders who were debating this amendment.
Those arguments are in no way ambiguous

Of course they are! You simply choose to read ONE side of the argument and see it as unambiguous. If it was so unambiguous, there wouldn't have been a debate.

It's just like the Supreme Court decisions interpreting the 2nd as an individual right. You make it sound as if that was a unanimous decision without any dissent.

THAT, my friend, is the lie.

I can nearly guarantee if the decision was 5-4 in the other direction you'd be calling for the overthrow of the Supreme Court.

I picked the side that won
They got the 2nd Amendment they were fighting for
It is what we ended up with
Therefore, their intent is the one that counts here

And you mind reading machine is piss poor

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

kallend

*********

Quote

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state..."

Doesn't mention defending the people.

The right of ----> THE PEOPLE<----- to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

If you read any of Blackstone you would see what was written was written clear as a bell. The Founders assumed that people would be able to understand basic English as written.

"The right of the PEOPLE (citizens) to KEEP (own) and BEAR (carry) arms shall NOT BE INFRINGED".

Still doesn't mention defending the people. It gives a right to the people in order to secure the free state.

Jeez - don't they teach reading anymore?

proper reading would tell you that this right is not there solely to secure the free state. Clearly Heller and the Court said otherwise as well.

If you're going to invoke a court OPINION then you should also remember that the same court said the 2nd is not an unlimited right etc. etc. etc.

Ohh
You go back there
So
Is abortion an unlimited right in your opinion?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[quade 4]

rushmc

Is abortion an unlimited right in your opinion?

No and it never has been. Not historically, nor after Roe v Wade.

It is a right . . . up to a point.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Bignugget 0]

rushmc

I took some time a few years back and read the Federalist Papers


When I first started, I struggled a bit with the they were written.

That does not surprise me. I wager it took some time indeed.

[rushmc 23]

Bignugget

***

I took some time a few years back and read the Federalist Papers


When I first started, I struggled a bit with the they were written.

That does not surprise me. I wager it took some time indeed.

You have never read any of them have you?

Give it a try
You will get it right away

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[quade 4]

Side note: I have a hypothesis a full 30% of the population doesn't understand subtext.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rushmc 23]

quade

Side note: I have a hypothesis a full 30% of the population doesn't understand subtext.

So now you get in on it?



Surprise surprise

Go moderator go!!

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[DanG 1]

Quote

Then you would be completely wrong. Martial Law can be imposed for a variety of reasons including civil unrest like was the case after Hurricane Katrina. If this is a National Crisis on as massive a scale as some of the left wingers claim it is, I would think they would be supportive of anything that would save lives. After all, most of the honest people who are forced to live among this slime would be supportive of such an action and the only ones who would be inconvenienced would be the criminals who had background checks run. To me this is more productive and legal than taking away the rights of law abiding citizens and requiring registration of guns by those citizens.

QED

- Dan G

[kelpdiver 2]

quade

Side note: I have a hypothesis a full 30% of the population doesn't understand subtext.

unfortunately for you, a full 95% of people here understand bullshit.