Now do you suppose the Founding Fathers envisioned

[SmarterthanYou]

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

this post here shows me that you know absolutely NOTHING about the Constitution, rights, freedom, or anything else that the founders supported for ratification, choosing instead to rely on government agents and entities to tell you what it all means, with absolutely zero ability to differentiate between right and wrong except for what did the left say vs the right.

you 'lecturing' me using just political party members explanations is laughable at best. I'll stay with the founders and what they wrote, which is inarguably correct.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

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

which leftist party member gave you that propaganda to spew? The definition of the prefatory clause was well established among the founders or it would not have been ratified.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

But you aren't 20 are you. So you need an equalizer to defend yourself against people that are 20. THINK!

I'm on the internet.
I don't need anything at all.
I don't even know if I'm engaging real people or not.
It's just a way to kill time.

 

[archives]

this post here shows me that you know absolutely NOTHING about the Constitution, rights, freedom, or anything else that the founders supported for ratification, choosing instead to rely on government agents and entities to tell you what it all means, with absolutely zero ability to differentiate between right and wrong except for what did the left say vs the right.

you 'lecturing' me using just political party members explanations is laughable at best. I'll stay with the founders and what they wrote, which is inarguably correct.

Not at all, as I’ve said, bottom line, which common sense alone tells 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. It is a basic tenant of Locke, of whom the Founding Fathers based their outlook upon, you are professing an aborted version of Robespierre’s dogmatism, and we all know how that turned out

 

[archives]

which leftist party member gave you that propaganda to spew? The definition of the prefatory clause was well established among the founders or it would not have been ratified.

Not true, as I said, the SCOTUS’s inability to define it was why they always tried to avoid gun cases, Scalia disregarded it, actually, skipping over it, basing his “logic” on the fact the clause hadn’t been legally defined

 

[Lionfish]

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

Poor anchovies, take your bullshit to the Supreme Court or get two-thirds of both houses and amend the Constitution.
Another option is to stop listening to leftie talk shows where the host thinks he/she/alphabet can interpret the founding father's words.

 

[Geeko Sportivo]

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.

Sir, we are pretty much tired of you lecturing us on ANYTHING!

You seem to have only one vision and purpose in life, and it comes through your peep sight!

Guns and shooting things is your life- Isn't it? Sad really!

 

[domer76]

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

Disregard anything that dimwit has to say about rights or the Constitution. He once stated that, and I quote, “vehicles cannot be necessary” in a modern society because they are not covered in the Constitution.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Not at all, as I’ve said, bottom line, which common sense alone tells 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. It is a basic tenant of Locke, of whom the Founding Fathers based their outlook upon, you are professing an aborted version of Robespierre’s dogmatism, and we all know how that turned out

you equate two things that are entirely different, not to mention that you cannot possibly base rights on 'reason', as that alone would dictate that majority rules over individual rights. not happening and the founders did not want that to happen. there is a reason that they wrong unalienable in the declaration.

there is and was no freedom to drive on the left side of the road because every state constitution gives states the power to regulate the roadways, i.e. define which side to drive on.

bottom line, you do not have power to define my rights.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Not true, as I said, the SCOTUS’s inability to define it was why they always tried to avoid gun cases, Scalia disregarded it, actually, skipping over it, basing his “logic” on the fact the clause hadn’t been legally defined

there is no inability of SCOTUS to define it because it's been defined by the founders in their debate minutes and commentaries. The founders definition overrides that of a modern SCOTUS

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Sir, we are pretty much tired of you lecturing us on ANYTHING!

You seem to have only one vision and purpose in life, and it comes through your peep sight!

Guns and shooting things is your life- Isn't it? Sad really!

cry harder

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Disregard anything that dimwit has to say about rights or the Constitution. He once stated that, and I quote, “vehicles cannot be necessary” in a modern society because they are not covered in the Constitution.

quit lying, dumbass. or put me on ignore again, fuckstick.

 

[Into the Night]

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

He wasn't 'well regulated militia'. He was a mental case.

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

Self defense is not insanity.

 

[Into the Night]

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.

I already know you discard the Constitution and support tyranny.

 

[Into the Night]

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

You are denying the Constitution again.
A militia is not required for the right of the people to own and carry guns.

 

[Into the Night]

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.

You are living in a country that exists BECAUSE OF INSURRECTION.

 

[Into the Night]

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

Irrelevance fallacy. The Constitution, and ONLY the Constitution is the authoritative reference of the Constitution. You don't get to speak for the dead.

 

[Into the Night]

Not it hasn’t, never been discredited in any court of law, and is makes more historical sense than an Originalism fiction

So you do not consider the Supreme Court to be a court of law. Gotit.

 

[Geeko Sportivo]

cry harder

Do you actually give your family members guns as Christmas and Birthday presents?

Are even your holidays all about guns?

 

[Into the Night]

Mexico doesn't allow citizens to own guns.

It does.