“Well regulated...”
The felons from Jan 6 should never legally carry a gun again.
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
“Well regulated...”
SmarterthanYou
rebel
what historical documentation from the founders do you have that stipulates 'well regulated' means government controlled?????
Just the plain meaning, that in order to access the right one must be a part of a well regulated militia.
And the fact that even in the founders time, regulations were accepted as legal.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
so you don't have any documentation from the founders on 'well regulated' meaning only government run and controlled. that's all you had to say.
I have many quotes from founding fathers and commentators in that era that refer to 'the people' as individuals and 'well regulated' meant trained or operational...........as well as the right to bear arms being portrayed to everybody prior to ratification and after ratification as being an individual right, whether they were in a militia or not.
care to compare evidence??????
The felons from Jan 6 should never legally carry a gun again.
But BLM rioters and looters and people who attack Police Stations ... should?
I never once claimed that it means ONLY government run and controlled. This is why I generally refuse to get into it with you, you pretend the opposing argument is different than it is, because that makes it easier to knock down. I guess it makes you feel victorious.
It is clear that those who wrote the Bill of Rights envisioned that towns and states could regulate "arms" such as muskets. It is also clear that most Americans of today believe that we can regulate flame throwers and Nuclear "Arms" and that these rights are certainly not inalienable.
You really just want people to be killed, from all 74 million trump supporters to people in prison, you are one dark mother fucker.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
you refuse to get in to it with me because I can prove you wrong every time. you claim it's 'clear' that the bill of rights was written to let towns and states regulate arms, but have zero proof of that claim. so you're wrong again. if most americans today decided blacks needed to be put back in to slave status again, would you agree that they can do that?
what about the founders claim about inalienable rights, AMONG those are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness???????????? or was he pulling a fast one on those stupid traitorous colonists?
no person convicted of a felon can legally in case you didnt know that. of course its the democrats who are trying to restore felons rights or did you forget that
Did I ever say that? Silly and pitiful that you are making such assumptions.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
assumptions like towns and states could regulate arms? or that the founders meant 'well regulated' was government controlled? or that one had to be a member of the militia to enjoy a 'right of the people'??????
1) Again you mistated my claim, can you not read?
2) I do have evidence, there is never PROOF of such things, look the meaning of the two words.
3) Do you believe that people should be allowed to have a nuke in their back yard?
4) Should violent felons be allowed guns?
5) Should Mohamed Atta have been allowed to possess an AK (if he were to have lived) while he was in prison.
6) Should Richard Reid be allowed a Gun in prison?
7) What about John Hinkley, should he be allowed a gun?
8) Should a 4 year old be allowed to play with a flame thrower, because if the right is inalienable, you sure cant take that right from her.
I do know the law, I did not ask what the law IS, I asked "should". Those are two different things, no wonder you are so misinformed, you have poor reading comprehension.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
I've noticed a recurring problem with both democrats and republicans when they are taken to task on their obvious misunderstanding of the constitution and the rights protected by it...........that is that they go to hyperbolic extremes as absolutes when they have no logical argument for their position.
1. be clearer of your claims so people don't have to muddle through your vagueness
2. provide your evidence so it can be investigated and/or disproved
3. the people are to be entitled to own any weapon that their government would use against them for tyrannical purposes
4. If they can't be trusted in public with a weapon, they can't be trusted in public
5. read the 5th Amendment again, and again. maybe you'll understand " nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"
6. more hyperbole...............not worth answering or arguing this point with you
So we are only "entitled to own any weapons that the government would use against them for tyrannical purposes"?
So if a person is not to be trusted in public, then the right becomes alienable? I thought the right was inalienable? If its inalienable everyone in prison should be allowed to be armed, right?
So we can alienate people from their rights if we give them due process of law? That does not sound like inalienable, it sounds alienable to me....
You see, you make these silly and over braud claims when they suit you, but the second you point out how silly the over braud claims are, you run.
As soon as you find a way to keep criminals from having them, we will talk, but no they shouldn't, they were not carrying that day!
SmarterthanYou
rebel
no, you make these ridiculous hyperbolic statements in an inane attempt to prove that your theory is correct, like prisoners having weapons DESPITE the very clear words in the 5th Amendment, which also doesn't imply that rights are alienable.
your idiotic presentation of the constitution, bill of rights, and rights in general are the unfortunate result of your shoddy law school training and indoctrination of so called constitutional law, which has nothing to do with the constitution despite it's claim.
it's the same bullshit as believing the framers would create a LIMITED central government, restricting their powers with a legal document, then turn the power to define those limits over to the entity they just created. STUPID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You are the one claiming they were inalienable rights, then you support alienating people from those rights. Defend yourself...
SmarterthanYou
rebel
5th Amendment. read it again. then read it again. then again if you still don't understand what it means
So the rights are not inalienable? Are you saying the government can take away your right to bear arms under the 5th Amendment?