Page 18 of 19 FirstFirst ... 8141516171819 LastLast
Results 256 to 270 of 284

Thread: Well Regulated Militia

  1. #256 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    119
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 18 Times in 14 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 15 Times in 14 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by domer76 View Post
    It is difficult to imagine that one could butcher the meaning of the 2nd as badly as you just did, but somehow you managed it.

    The 2nd, pal, has NOTHING to do with sticks or stones or knives or forks. It is written SOLELY with the use of weapons. “Bear arms” did not mean “throwing rocks”. It was also written in the context of the militia, hence the term “bear arms”. That’s also why Madison included a conscientious objector clause. He also needed the votes from the powerful Quaker block for ratification.

    How you lept from the intent of the 2nd to asking the government for permission to defend yourself is beyond comprehension. Just an incoherent babble.

    Infringement vs abridgement? You abridge a book, pal. If you think abridge means limit, that is identical to infringe. Play whatever incoherent word games you want. Your argument is still babble.

    Your wording about free speech is so incoherent, it’s impossible to respond.

    What you made clear is your massive ignorance of the 2nd. It is EXACTLY what it says. The right to bear arms. Nothing more, nothing less.

    Stop while you’re behind.
    Where did I mention rocks, knives, or forks? "Arms" refers to weapons used for battle, and they included not just guns but sabers and similar. Where did you get the ridiculous idea that soldiers only used firearms?

    Are you not familiar with the different meanings of abridgment? Abridgment in law refers to curtailing rights.

    My comment on free speech is painfully clear: the right to free speech cannot be infringed but it may be abridged. Do you know what that means?

    Finally, your last point is completely wrong:

    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.
    Do you see the first dozen or so words of the statement or not? If not, then you are wasting my time.

  2. #257 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    48,970
    Thanks
    12,111
    Thanked 14,174 Times in 10,392 Posts
    Groans
    45
    Groaned 4,876 Times in 4,194 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ralfy View Post
    I'm referring to the precursors to 2A.

    They were not superseded but considered when 2A was drafted.

    Some of the points included the need to have a standing army vs. the desire not to allow the military to become so strong as to overwhelm civil power, the issue of people having to defend themselves but also their state, the issue of the right to bear arms (with one group very much against it), and so on.

    Please read them by yourself as it's too tiring to spoon feed forum members.
    Nice citations. A good read. But when the 2nd was ratified, they ceased to have meaning. Notice NY’s. Just as Madison’s original wording with a conscientious objector clause, that also has one. The 2nd does not. So the “precursor” was no longer relevant. It was replaced and therefore meaningless.

  3. #258 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    48,970
    Thanks
    12,111
    Thanked 14,174 Times in 10,392 Posts
    Groans
    45
    Groaned 4,876 Times in 4,194 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ralfy View Post
    Where did I mention rocks, knives, or forks? "Arms" refers to weapons used for battle, and they included not just guns but sabers and similar. Where did you get the ridiculous idea that soldiers only used firearms?

    Are you not familiar with the different meanings of abridgment? Abridgment in law refers to curtailing rights.

    My comment on free speech is painfully clear: the right to free speech cannot be infringed but it may be abridged. Do you know what that means?

    Finally, your last point is completely wrong:



    Do you see the first dozen or so words of the statement or not? If not, then you are wasting my time.
    You’re really struggling with this and trying to make more of the 2nd than is there. YOU used the term “whatever they could access or afford” when referring to the natives. I merely pointed out the absurdity of that with my example. By your definition, rocks or knives or forks are “arms” if they are used in self defense. But that’s not what the 2nd or its “precursors” are about, is it?

    You can use the word abridge, curtail, limit, restrict or infringe, pal. The 1st uses “abridged”, the 2nd uses “infringed”. So, the 2nd CAN’T be infringed, but the 1st CAN be abridged? Do you see your contradiction? They all mean the same thing. And your precious 2nd is infringed all the time.

    I am very familiar with the wording and the original intent of the 2nd. From one of your first posts, that is something we can agree upon. That is, in the context of a citizen militia, at least.
    Last edited by domer76; 03-17-2019 at 08:59 PM.

  4. #259 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    74,838
    Thanks
    15,266
    Thanked 14,432 Times in 12,044 Posts
    Groans
    18,546
    Groaned 1,699 Times in 1,647 Posts
    Blog Entries
    6

    Default

    First Militia Act of 1792

    The first Act, passed May 2, 1792, provided for the authority of the president to call out the militias of the several states, "whenever the United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion from any foreign nation or Indian tribe". The law also authorized the President to call the militias into Federal service "whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed or the execution thereof obstructed, in any state, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by this act". This provision likely referred to uprisings such as Shays' Rebellion. The president's authority in both cases was to expire after two years
    SEDITION: incitement of resistance to or insurrection against lawful authority.


  5. #260 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    74,838
    Thanks
    15,266
    Thanked 14,432 Times in 12,044 Posts
    Groans
    18,546
    Groaned 1,699 Times in 1,647 Posts
    Blog Entries
    6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ralfy View Post
    Actually, I'm a gun owner.

    Will report and ignore you for trolling.
    Report him for WHAT??
    SEDITION: incitement of resistance to or insurrection against lawful authority.


  6. #261 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    57,638
    Thanks
    563
    Thanked 10,010 Times in 8,569 Posts
    Groans
    29
    Groaned 498 Times in 487 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ralfy View Post
    Actually, I'm a gun owner.

    Will report and ignore you for trolling.
    Report me. You won't be the first coward that has done so. All it means is you joined a list of other cowards that got their tender feelings hurt when someone said something they didn't agree with or like. How sad of an existence is that.

  7. #262 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,714
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,657 Times in 4,437 Posts
    Groans
    295
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by domer76 View Post
    No doubt we've lost the meaning of the original intent.
    That is true with much of the Constitution. Most of those changes we would see as increasing our freedoms--incorporation of the Bill of Rights, updating things like free press and search and seizure to include modern technology, using the equal protection clause to apply to gender and sexual orientation....

    I don't think the majority in Heller agrees with your interpretation of the original intent of the 2nd, but it gave good historical arguments for both sides.

  8. #263 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    8,274
    Thanks
    372
    Thanked 3,039 Times in 2,191 Posts
    Groans
    168
    Groaned 603 Times in 570 Posts

    Default

    When the Constitution was written, our forefathers forgot to give Women and Minorities the right to vote in Federal Elections!

    So, what did we do? We discovered the error and the people amended the Constitution to allow for it.

    So, the 2nd Amendment can also be Amended by the people to ban Military weapons from being sold to and held by the people!

    The people decide everything in this country- and our forefathers gave us the ways and means to amend the Constitution to do what the people want.

    And, the people are demanding changes to the Constitution to change the 2nd Amendment and shut these gun-toters up!! BLAHAHAHA!

  9. #264 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    48,970
    Thanks
    12,111
    Thanked 14,174 Times in 10,392 Posts
    Groans
    45
    Groaned 4,876 Times in 4,194 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    That is true with much of the Constitution. Most of those changes we would see as increasing our freedoms--incorporation of the Bill of Rights, updating things like free press and search and seizure to include modern technology, using the equal protection clause to apply to gender and sexual orientation....

    I don't think the majority in Heller agrees with your interpretation of the original intent of the 2nd, but it gave good historical arguments for both sides.
    4 did. It was the luck of timing for gun lovers.

  10. #265 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,714
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,657 Times in 4,437 Posts
    Groans
    295
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by domer76 View Post
    4 did. It was the luck of timing for gun lovers.
    If the court had reached a different conclusion and agreed with your interpretation how would anything be any different (except in D. C. where residents could not own a pistol or keep a loaded rifle in their home)?

    Do you think the timing for gun owners would be any different today?

  11. #266 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    48,970
    Thanks
    12,111
    Thanked 14,174 Times in 10,392 Posts
    Groans
    45
    Groaned 4,876 Times in 4,194 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    If the court had reached a different conclusion and agreed with your interpretation how would anything be any different (except in D. C. where residents could not own a pistol or keep a loaded rifle in their home)?

    Do you think the timing for gun owners would be any different today?
    To overturn Heller? One needs standing first, don’t they?

  12. #267 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    119
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 18 Times in 14 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 15 Times in 14 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by domer76 View Post
    Nice citations. A good read. But when the 2nd was ratified, they ceased to have meaning. Notice NY’s. Just as Madison’s original wording with a conscientious objector clause, that also has one. The 2nd does not. So the “precursor” was no longer relevant. It was replaced and therefore meaningless.
    Actually, they didn't, because several drafts were made and debates took place concerning ratification. Thus, precursors (not just one) were relevant.

  13. #268 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    119
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 18 Times in 14 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 15 Times in 14 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by USFREEDOM911 View Post
    First Militia Act of 1792

    The first Act, passed May 2, 1792, provided for the authority of the president to call out the militias of the several states, "whenever the United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion from any foreign nation or Indian tribe". The law also authorized the President to call the militias into Federal service "whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed or the execution thereof obstructed, in any state, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by this act". This provision likely referred to uprisings such as Shays' Rebellion. The president's authority in both cases was to expire after two years
    That's right. Now, study the subsequent Militia Acts. This time, you will have to find them online and read them.

  14. #269 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    119
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 18 Times in 14 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 15 Times in 14 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by domer76 View Post
    You’re really struggling with this and trying to make more of the 2nd than is there. YOU used the term “whatever they could access or afford” when referring to the natives. I merely pointed out the absurdity of that with my example. By your definition, rocks or knives or forks are “arms” if they are used in self defense. But that’s not what the 2nd or its “precursors” are about, is it?

    You can use the word abridge, curtail, limit, restrict or infringe, pal. The 1st uses “abridged”, the 2nd uses “infringed”. So, the 2nd CAN’T be infringed, but the 1st CAN be abridged? Do you see your contradiction? They all mean the same thing. And your precious 2nd is infringed all the time.

    I am very familiar with the wording and the original intent of the 2nd. From one of your first posts, that is something we can agree upon. That is, in the context of a citizen militia, at least.
    Where did you get the idea that soldiers that time used only firearms as weapons?

    The precursors did not become irrelevant because they became the basis for ratification debates. Read the section after the one you referred to earlier as "nice".

    Infringement refers to complete restriction, abridgement to limitations.

    Finally, 2A does not refer to a citizen militia.

  15. #270 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    119
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 18 Times in 14 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 15 Times in 14 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by USFREEDOM911 View Post
    Report him for WHAT??
    Trolling.

Similar Threads

  1. Well Regulated Militia?
    By signalmankenneth in forum General Politics Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 01-20-2013, 01:45 PM
  2. If Guns were as regulated as Car?!!
    By signalmankenneth in forum General Politics Forum
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 12-18-2012, 07:23 AM
  3. A well-regulated militia
    By Guns Guns Guns in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 08-07-2012, 08:20 PM
  4. a well regulated militia
    By SmarterthanYou in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-28-2011, 02:38 PM
  5. Well Regulated Militia Member a killer
    By The Dude in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 01-07-2010, 06:49 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •