rebel
this is how you show your own ignorance and then try to claim that you're the only one that's right. it says 'security of a free state'. it doesn't say for the defense of the country. understand the language that they used in that time, because it still means that. they just experienced their own central government trying to subjugate them under absolute tyranny by taking their arms. the 2nd Amendment was written to tell the new central government that they have no power or authority over our arms.Originally Posted by Old Trapper
absolutely, yet you statists demand slavery by demanding that the federal government have more power than the people. the exact OPPOSITE of what the framers created.
dozens of cases have gone through the courts only to have the tyrannical government (courts are indeed part of that tyranny) deny us the constitution.
fuck the NRA. the NRA is responsible for more gun control legislation. its why I call them Negotiate Rights Away.
A sad commentary on we, as a people, and our viewpoint of our freedom can be summed up like this. We have liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, yet those very people look at Constitutionalists as radical and extreme.................so those liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans must believe that the constitution is radical and extreme.
Verified User
That is why I advocate kindergarten kids carrying guns. The 2nd does not mention age limits because that is abridging the right to guns. Prisoners in jail should also carry. Unconsitutional to take away their guns.
rebel
your hyperbole shows me that you know you have no argument. thanks for conceding.
A sad commentary on we, as a people, and our viewpoint of our freedom can be summed up like this. We have liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, yet those very people look at Constitutionalists as radical and extreme.................so those liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans must believe that the constitution is radical and extreme.
Verified User
So you never read the 2nd, yet defend it as a right that cannot be abridged. Now you accept that it can be. So lets discuss when and where that line is. Thanks for admitting you were wrong again.
rebel
i've read the 2nd. I've also read every founding father document, especially the federalist papers #46, as well as every single piece of commentary put to the people before and after ratification.
what you fail to understand is that the 2nd means that the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT has no power or authority over the arms of the people. thanks for showing you like to make bullshit assumptions.
A sad commentary on we, as a people, and our viewpoint of our freedom can be summed up like this. We have liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, yet those very people look at Constitutionalists as radical and extreme.................so those liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans must believe that the constitution is radical and extreme.
Verified User
sty, just ripped norby a second one
morality is a set of beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors that facilitate voluntary, cooperative and mutually beneficial relationships.
Trump Wins,
by definition https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/trump
Mjölner
And so it begins
It is the responsibility of every American citizen to own a modern military rifle.
Verified User
Because of your overt ignorance, and this strange ability people like you have of twisting the truth, it makes it hard for one who actually looks up a topic before responding to take the likes of you seriously. The British did seek to confiscate the guns of the settlers before the War of Independence began. However, by the time they got around to trying such a scheme Ben Franklin had set up smuggling routes to supply the Colonists. There was never a fear of losing their weapons, and no such fear is ever mentioned in any of the debates regarding the Second.
The Second addresses two very real fears of the Founders. One was the tyranny by a government with a superior military force. In each of the debates over the Second this is one major concern. The other was the fear of a permanent Standing Army. In looking at that topic let us address your contention about the language of the period. "Free state" was used often in Blackstone's Commentaries, Montesquieu's Spirit of the Laws, Hume's essays, Trenchard and Gordon's Cato's Letters, among many others. The phrase "free state" was also used by many leading American writers such as John Adams, James Madison, and the Continental Congress.
Now the question is in what sense sense did the phrase "free state" mean at the time. In 18th century political discourse, "free state" was a well-understood political term of art, meaning "free country". Politics of he time were divided into two classes, despotism, and "free country". As a result of their being free, "free States" constantly faced the threats of reverting to despotism. In order to prevent this "free States" had to confront these threats and structure their governments in a certain way. America chose the way of the Militia, and no permanent standing Army.
In conclusion, "State" simply meant country, and "free" meant free from despotism, not from some other country. "Security of a free State" was a reference to the country as a whole, and the defense of its borders from outside influences, and also from internal despots. This was how the phrase was used by the Framers, and I find no reason to think that the Framers used the phrase to mean something different from what it meant to Blackstone, Montesquieu, the Continental Congress, Madison, Adams, or others.
As to the rest of your usual garbage, it is just that and will be ignored.
"2Timothy 3 "But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come: For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good, traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having a form of godliness but denying its power. And from such people turn away"
Verified User
Since most of them are unavailable on line, and I am sure you did not travel the country over to find those documents, I would say you are again a lying piece of shit.
From Federalist #46:
The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition. The reasonings contained in these papers must have been employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to disprove the reality of this danger. That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism.
Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. "
Last edited by Old Trapper; 11-18-2018 at 11:45 PM.
"2Timothy 3 "But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come: For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good, traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having a form of godliness but denying its power. And from such people turn away"
rebel
If there was never a fear of losing their weapons, why the need to set up smuggling routes? see how easy it is to prove that you're just making up bullshit?
A sad commentary on we, as a people, and our viewpoint of our freedom can be summed up like this. We have liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, yet those very people look at Constitutionalists as radical and extreme.................so those liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans must believe that the constitution is radical and extreme.
Classical Liberal
Finally had time to listen to the vid in your OP.
I'm a low tech guy and it works quite well for me and my business.
I worked in a high tech office before I started my own and I can tell you I'm far more efficient. Not only that but I simply don't have the time to fiddle around with technology.
I put in a minimum of an hour a day swimming, constantly trying to perfect my technique , which is never ending.
I see young couples on a date at a dinner table literally texting rather than conversing.
Whatever. As far as I'm concerned, I'm ahead of the game.
cancel2 2022 (11-19-2018), Stretch (11-19-2018)
Resident Voluntaryist
Rights don't exist. There is only freedom, and the asshole that wants to take it away from you. Guess which one government is.
If you believe that man is good, there is no need for government. If you believe that man is bad, you dare not create one.
Verified User
See how easy it is for a fool like you to make a fool of themselves. Tell you what asshat. Since you have read everything regarding the Founders, and the Second, post one site where the argument for the Second is confiscation of weapons by the Brits. Think you can do that?
http://www.davekopel.org/2A/LawRev/a...n-control.html
"In flagrant defiance of royal authority, the Provincial Congress appointed a Committee of Safety and vested it with the power to call forth the militia. The militia of Massachusetts was now the instrument of what was becoming an independent government of Massachusetts.
Lord Dartmouth, the Royal Secretary of State for America, sent Gage a letter on October 17, 1774, urging him to disarm New England. Gage replied that he would like to do so, but it was impossible without the use of force. After Gage's letter was made public by a reading in the British House of Commons, it was publicized in America as proof of Britain's malign intentions.
Two days after Lord Dartmouth dispatched his disarmament recommendation, King George III and his ministers blocked importation of arms and ammunition to America. Read literally, the order merely required a permit to export arms or ammunition from Great Britain to America. In practice, no permits were granted.
Meanwhile, Benjamin Franklin was masterminding the surreptitious import of arms and ammunition from the Netherlands, France, and Spain.
The patriotic Boston Committee of Correspondence learned of the arms embargo and promptly dispatched Paul Revere to New Hampshire, with the warning that two British ships were headed to Fort William and Mary, near Portsmouth, New Hampshire, to seize firearms, cannons, and gunpowder. On December 14, 1774, 400 New Hampshire patriots preemptively captured all the material at the fort. A New Hampshire newspaper argued that the capture was prudent and proper, reminding readers that the ancient Carthaginians had consented to "deliver up all their Arms to the Romans" and were decimated by the Romans soon after."
Last edited by Old Trapper; 11-19-2018 at 09:40 AM.
"2Timothy 3 "But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come: For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good, traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having a form of godliness but denying its power. And from such people turn away"
Verified User
The one that is designed to rpotect those right. Without government there are no rights save for the strong.
"2Timothy 3 "But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come: For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good, traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having a form of godliness but denying its power. And from such people turn away"
evince (11-19-2018)
Resident Voluntaryist
With government, they are the strong. There are no rights for you, only privileges. Without government, there is freedom.
If you believe that man is good, there is no need for government. If you believe that man is bad, you dare not create one.
Posting Rules
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks