Now do you suppose the Founding Fathers envisioned

A

archives

Verified User
one of those “well regulated militia’s” walking into public facilities and gunning down sixteen innocent people with a musket?

Amazing how supposed educated jurists like Scalia, Thomas, and Alito try to justify the insanity by telling us they know what the Founding Fathers thought thru the Originalism bullshit
 
I believe that the founding fathers envisioned exactly that.

If the writers of the constitution didn't want America to be the planet's biggest gunfight,
they'd have written a better constitution.
 
NiftyNiblick said:
I believe that the founding fathers envisioned exactly that.

If the writers of the constitution didn't want America to be the planet's biggest gunfight,
they'd have written a better constitution.
Click to expand...

Nah, they were talking about an actual State militia, given the country disbanded the Continental Army, they were relying on a volunteer citizen force to defend the country if needed, common practice at the time, ergo the need to maintain weapons
 
archives said:
one of those “well regulated militia’s” walking into public facilities and gunning down sixteen innocent people with a musket?

Amazing how supposed educated jurists like Scalia, Thomas, and Alito try to justify the insanity by telling us they know what the Founding Fathers thought thru the Originalism bullshit
Click to expand...

the founders debated and concluded that freedom was more important than safety, especially safety that government offered, but usually failed to deliver and then refused accountability. The founders believed that ONLY in the hands of the people, freedom could be maintained and that was by them keeping and bearing their own arms.

Frankly, i'm getting tired of lecturing you on what the founders wanted.
 
archives said:
Nah, they were talking about an actual State militia, given the country disbanded the Continental Army, they were relying on a volunteer citizen force to defend the country if needed, common practice at the time, ergo the need to maintain weapons
Click to expand...

this is unadulterated horseshit and has been thoroughly discredited as wishful thinking of statists.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
this is unadulterated horseshit and has been thoroughly discredited as wishful thinking of statists.
Click to expand...


Although STY is dumber than two sacks of pebbles, I believe that he's right on this issue.

The 2nd Amendment pretty much justifies insurrection if interpreted literally.

Although he's mentally deficient enough to think that such is a good thing,
he is right on this.

Our constitution is a shit show.
Everybody seems to be too much of a brain-dead true believer to realize it.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
the founders debated and concluded that freedom was more important than safety, especially safety that government offered, but usually failed to deliver and then refused accountability. The founders believed that ONLY in the hands of the people, freedom could be maintained and that was by them keeping and bearing their own arms.

Frankly, i'm getting tired of lecturing you on what the founders wanted.
Click to expand...

That’s bullshit, the Founders, who were stanch students of the Enlightenment, especially Locke, were not that dogmatic, in fact, they were revolting against absolutism, whether it institutional or a concept

And you haven’t lectured anyone, rather just regurgitated NRA talking points assembled by cherry-picking phrases from the Founders who were profile authors on everything
 
NiftyNiblick said:
Although STY is dumber than two sacks of pebbles, I believe that he's right on this issue.

The 2nd Amendment pretty much justifies insurrection if interpreted literally.

Although he's mentally deficient enough to think that such is a good thing,
he is right on this.

Our constitution is a shit show.
Everybody seems to be too much of a brain-dead true believer to realize it.
Click to expand...

your wishful thinking aside, I am right on this issue. where you are always wrong is in the belief that the constitution is badly written. the only ones who think that are the morons who have more faith in government power than they do in their own freedom, as well as the freedom of others.
 
archives said:
That’s bullshit, the Founders, who were stanch students of the Enlightenment, especially Locke, were not that dogmatic, in fact, they were revolting against absolutism, whether it institutional or a concept

And you haven’t lectured anyone, rather just regurgitated NRA talking points assembled by cherry-picking phrases from the Founders who were profile authors on everything
Click to expand...

It is the absolute height of stupidity to believe that the founders would ratify an Amendment that ONLY guaranteed the right of government run units to have arms, after they had just won independence from their government who tried to enforce that only the government had arms.

It's also very amusing that you call the dozen plus references of the founders claim to individually, privately owned firearms as a right as 'cherry picking', yet you can only reference one single chief justices claim, 200 years AFTER the fact.

you've been lectured on how wrong you are. again.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
your wishful thinking aside, I am right on this issue. where you are always wrong is in the belief that the constitution is badly written. the only ones who think that are the morons who have more faith in government power than they do in their own freedom, as well as the freedom of others.
Click to expand...

The human being evolved as a social animal, not a lone hunter.
Aberrations like yourself were meant to be culled.

I'm not sure for what we're waiting.
 
archives said:
Not it hasn’t, never been discredited in any court of law, and is makes more historical sense than an Originalism fiction
Click to expand...

no court of law, EVER, in the history of the US has EVER indicated an individual right until Heller? Is that what you're saying?

For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822)

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right. [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)]
 
My question is still, how much more dangerous do these guns need to prove they are before we treat them the same way as fully automatics?

We regulate them more heavily presumably because of how dangerous they can be, especially in crowded situations, and yet *gestures at the 565 mass shootings we've had this year so far*.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
I strongly encourage you to pick up a weapon and come try to 'cull' me, you cowardly shit show of a supposed american
Click to expand...

It's funny you should say that.
You know that I'm 77 years old.

What you don't know is that if we were both 20 and engaged in an unarmed altercation,
I could have literally taken your life in well under a minute.

I'm not saying that this is an important thing that says anything about either of us as a person.
It's simply true.

You want to go straight to the guns, though, right?

Did you serve in the armed forces? I did, apparently as a "supposed American."
What training do you have with guns that puts you in the advantage even there?

STY, you're so pathetically dumb that it's painful to share discourse with you.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
It is the absolute height of stupidity to believe that the founders would ratify an Amendment that ONLY guaranteed the right of government run units to have arms, after they had just won independence from their government who tried to enforce that only the government had arms.

It's also very amusing that you call the dozen plus references of the founders claim to individually, privately owned firearms as a right as 'cherry picking', yet you can only reference one single chief justices claim, 200 years AFTER the fact.

you've been lectured on how wrong you are. again.
Click to expand...

More so “stupid” to believe the Founders thought ”freedom was more important than safety,” as I’ve “lectured” you, all rights, even freedom, are based on reason, not desire, which is why you lost your “freedom” to drive on the left hand side of the road

And as I said, the Founders were prolific writers over long careers, look long enough, and anyone can find a phrase or paragraph that supposedly supports just about any point one wants to make, which is what you, via the NRA, has done
 
NiftyNiblick said:
It's funny you should say that.
You know that I'm 77 years old.

What you don't know is that if we were both 20 and engaged in an unarmed altercation,
I could have literally taken your life in well under a minute.

I'm not saying that this is an important thing that says anything about either of us as a person.
It's simply true.
Click to expand...
I find it absolutely hilarious that without knowing one single thing about me, that you can assume this.............:laugh:

NiftyNiblick said:
You want to go straight to the guns, though, right?

Did you serve in the armed forces? I did, apparently as a "supposed American."
What training do you have with guns that puts you in the advantage even there?

STY, you're so pathetically dumb that it's painful to share discourse with you.
Click to expand...

one thing i've made very clear on this board is my service. 6 years as a US Marine.

if you find it painful to share discourse with me, then put me on ignore.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
no court of law, EVER, in the history of the US has EVER indicated an individual right until Heller? Is that what you're saying?

For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822)

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right. [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)]
Click to expand...

And the reason for that is because no SCOTUS prior to Heller could ever definitively define the prefatory clause, so they did proceed further on cases petitioning to the Amendment. And that is where Scalia came up with his Originalism bullshit, saying that if no Court could get by the prefatory clause, he could just skip over it and tell us what he thought the Founders thought
 
NiftyNiblick said:
It's funny you should say that.
You know that I'm 77 years old.

What you don't know is that if we were both 20 and engaged in an unarmed altercation,
I could have literally taken your life in well under a minute.

I'm not saying that this is an important thing that says anything about either of us as a person.
It's simply true.

You want to go straight to the guns, though, right?

Did you serve in the armed forces? I did, apparently as a "supposed American."
What training do you have with guns that puts you in the advantage even there?

STY, you're so pathetically dumb that it's painful to share discourse with you.
Click to expand...


But you aren't 20 are you. So you need an equalizer to defend yourself against people that are 20. THINK!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top