ok, now i'm not a conservative, i don't ever claim to be one, i'm only a moderate at best, quick question, now let's say ...men, let's say for example, if your ex-wife broke into your home and had a weapon, would it be ok to shoot to kill her? I say, yes!
These days its rather silly to argue over the interpretation of the 2nd amendment. Considering that the Federal government has already effectively abolished it
They call it a "background check". However, a licensed gun dealer cannot, by law, sell anyone a firearm until they receive information from the government which tells them whether or not they can make the sale
That is permission & its implementation is the abolishing of the 2nd. If its a right, permission is not required & vise versa
They completely skipped over the part about a 20 year old carrying an assault rifle around in downtown. The 2 amendment was meant for us to be able to defend ourselves from us being taken over by the Gov't not for us to just be able to flash guns around like morons and scare people.
All gun lovers and owners listen up, Vote for Ron Paul for President 2012, and I promise you that your Second Amendments, specially Forth Amendments will absolutely be protected, and every gun that you might want to by or own that are deemed illegal buy the Obama Administration will not be banned! Ron Paul is 100% a Second Amendment supporter!
No, Penn. You don't quite get it right either, though you do get credit for being on the correct side of the issue.
The clause , 'being necessary to the security of a free state,' is a non-rrestrictive adjectival clause modifying its noun phrase, 'a well regulated militia.'
It means that it can be removed (the adjectival clause) without changing the fundamental meaning of the sentence. Like this:
'A well regulated militia, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.'
'being necessary to the security of a free state,' merely adds force to to the 'militia' phrase.
We live in a free state defended, in part, by the right of its people to have guns. Mind your manners, all of you (foreign invaders and governments alike) and there shouldn't be a problem.
these guys are fucking stupid we were the militia dumb shit not england. a militia cant fight very effectively if they don't have the same equipment as the tyrant they are fighting. can i please shoot them? can i? please?
@gulbirk That is only the assumption be against gun control. What you just did is make the assumption that the statement if "so if the consitution says it, it must be right" and didn't take into account the supporting statements for the Second Amendment. The support for the Second Amendment was actually explained in the video. The people have the right to own all guns to prevent any government from imposing its will on the people.
@cubbiefn Yes, in other words. Its correct because the constitution says so.
Yet science and statistics clearly show that it normally leads to higher crime rates becaus its to easy to get armed. Another funny thing is that in countries where policemen are not armed, a lower % of criminals arm themselfe.
The government imposing its will on the people???? Dont you have a democrasy? Oh, I gues I was wrong. I was of the opinion that we, the people, elected our government.
@gulbirk While I'm glad you're actually trying to make real points now in your argument. I would like to know what qualifies your "Science and statistics"? Every statistic in the US that I've seen shows that in America is that when there are stricter gun control laws, crime rate goes up. Also, contries that have policemen that aren't armed simply aren't America, and maybe they have lower crime rates because they can't catch criminals without a gun. (Part 3 will be in the next comment).
@gulbirk (Part 3) I would also like to point out that I do live in a democracy. However, democracies aren't fool proof. For example, did you know that Hitler began as an elected official. While I don't like much of what our govenrnment does right now, it certainly isn't as bad as the NAZI party. However, have looser gun control laws helps to ensure a non imposing government. Also, it applies to other governments trying to impose its will on the American people in, for example, an invasion.
@cubbiefn Yes, every statistic in america. But if you look outside of america the pattern is quite clear.
The problem with america and guns right now is that if you de-legalise it in one state, there are simply to many illegal guns to buy, because the total amount of guns in the society is already way to high. Therefore, making it illegal on a state level OR a national level may not lead to less crime rates because there are too many guns in circulation.
You've already acknowledged that there are other factors besides gun ownership which have a significant effect on the gun crime rate. Which makes your whole statistical argument invalid.
@madass888 No it doesnt. What has an effect on it is HOW many guns exist in the society. And the amounts of guns existent in a society is highly dependent upon wether or not its legal to use guns.
So you say, the gun crime rate (G) depends on the amount of privately owned guns(g). Switzerland has high private gun ownership yet the gun crime rate is low. Which means the gun crime rate also has to be depended on other variables(a,b,c..). You've acknowledged this yourself.
Now you want to find to relationship between G and g. But G=G(g,a,b,c...). So it's impossible to find this relationship with data of G and g only. So your statistical argument doesn't hold.
@madass888 Using Switzerland in any kind of arument what so ever (at least when you compeare it to other countries) is plain out stupid. Its an exception from most other countries, anyone who has studied politics can tell you that. Switzerland is not build up around, nor does it consist of the same kind of population any other country does. Pluss, I never said the gun kills on its own. I am arguing that having guns is pointless and does increase crime.
@madass888 I do, but when the only country you can bring up to your defense is Switzerland then that tells me you dont have a frikin clue about the political situation. Its like claiming we should lower taxes because it works so good in Switzerland. Maybe you should study the population of Switzerland before you make idiotic claims like that.
Switzerland has different variables (a,b,c...) which has a significant effect on G. So the relation ship between G and g can not be found, without a,b,c...
Real individual human rights are eternal...they don't change over time because the crucial, fundamental factor that they are based on , human beings and their nature AS humans,don't change over time. A human is as human today as he was in the time of Christ. The right to bear arms is as valid for an individual today as it was two hundred years ago in America or a thousand years ago anywhere....and it will still be just as valid ten thousand years from now if Humans still walk the Earth.
@Riellysdad I'm sure the insanely high numbers of gun-related crime and violence has nothing to do with the fact that gun control is a "right". Most developed countries get on just fine without the need to legalize arms, I have no idea why you'd think it's a right worth defending..
@SexDrugsMoreSex ...Learn some history. Disarmed people are just victims waiting to be killed. Look what happened to the Armenians, the Jews etc etc....In the 20th century the Worlds Government's murdered over a 100 million of their own citizens...after making sure they were disarmed first. Google "Suzanna Gratia Hupp - What the Second Amendment is REALLY for". She's a true patriot and student of the constitution.
Technically correct, I wont dispute that ever. The wording make it pretty clear that the people can't have the right infringed. However, I am a realist. Times have changed. Back in that day, that was a necessity because the nation was young, if something happened and things broke down we may have needed state and local militias! But now look at us, also look at weapons. Im not saying "omg ban all guns!" but its crazy to think we can be unlimited. Times are too diff for the literal wording of it
@tiki2188 Times have changed. In the time of the Framers, it was pretty rare for you to be attacked by an animal, hostile indian, or, gosh, a foreign power, yet they still believed that being able to defend oneself a fundamental right. Fast forward to today and while the odds of being attacked by animal, indian, or foreign power is just as rare, we now are more likely to be attacked by another person. During the LA Riots, Korean businessmen saved their stores with guns: Lesson learned.
@HioPojac a militia by definition would be those who are already armed; therefore it would be redundant to suggest that this amendment is spelling out the right of such a militia to carry guns. what this ammendment is declaring: is in prefacing the right of not only of states to defend themselves (against the federal government), but also for the people to likewise be armed for their own defense against the tyranny of any government-local, state or federal.
@HermitintheRain Very well said. Agree with you 100%. To many people just don't understand. Put to much into it. The founding fathers were very clear on what they wanted. It says what they meant. People spend to much time trying to determine what they many have meant, or what they think they may have meant. Just read the words, What does it say. Very Simple.
@HioPojac if one looks into the history of any nation; (take Japan for example who at one point in time made it illegal for the people of Japan to carry swords), you soon see the rise of tyranny in that nation where the people are left defenseless against such an enemy, who alone then is allowed to be armed. In the example of Japan, we then see the rise of specialize weapons training among the common people, which brought about unique weapons that were once only tools of a given trade.
@HermitintheRain the Preamble of the Constitution sets the stage for everything found in it:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
the 2nd Amendment, as well as everything else found in the Constitution, is that which is counted essential to the promotion and protection of that tranquility, defense, welfare, and liberty. Such enemies of this will be found at all levels of society from a next door neighbor to a local sheriff to a state governor and even to those in high office of government. The 2nd Amendment as part of the whole is simply meant to contribute its part to that stated in the Preamble.
I do believe that people should be able to have guns, just with regulations, with out regulations, nobody can say that you can't carry a large automatic weapon into a public place and use it for the wrong reasons, sure, I bet you are smart enough to not shoot anybody, but there are still bad people in this world and it almost makes killing that much easier.
The version of the 2A passed by Congress states, "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."
Maybe Penn can explain all the "extra" commas and the different capitalizations (note "people" is not capitalized). Doesn't this mean that The Framers did actually "fuck-up the words" Penn. Or is it your pea-brained argument that is fucked-up?
The 2A does not protect the People from having their right to bear arms being taken away by the militia. That's just an idiotic interpretation since the militia would have no purpose if it's members did not bear arms.
Did he even spend three seconds before concocting such a moronic argument?
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State," is the preamble -it states the problem - whereas "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." is the operative clause -it presents the action that resolves the problem. Therefore the right was recognized only as a way for the State to protect itself. Which matters because the State did not have the means to form and maintain a standing army. The USSC erred in it's decision on "Heller Vs etc.,"
1. why you think I am a. arrogant, b. anti-gun, c. an asshat
2. where I have lied
3. why my ass should be anything but stupid (is that where you keep your brains?)
4. what you think "my agenda" is.
5. how the confused and uninformed rantings of persons such as Penn Jillette and yourself does anything to dispel the notion that "pro-gun" is a position held by inbred, uneducated trailer trash?
@FatFred2U Oh, by the way Pinko, I fully support any law that grants you the right to own a firearm. With your tendency to point the barrel at yourself before pulling the trigger, granting you that right could do nothing less than improve the gene pool. Hopefully the rest of your clan will, likewise, utilize firearms for the same noble purpose.
@PinkOld 1. "Fuckstick" is exactly the kind of grade school terminology I would expect from a mongoloid specimen such as yourself. In your case, it is nothing but a euphemism, since you will never find a woman desperate enough to have sex with an inbred, uneducated piece of trailer trash like you. And no Jethro, weekly trysts with your right hand do not make you any less of 43 year old virgin.
@PinkOld Based on your rebuttals, it seems your sexual fantasies come down to having sex with men and german shepherds. Too bad they, as well as women, will never be your willing partners. So I guess, that means you and unfuckedstick will be spending another Friday night at home with Righty.
@PinkOld 2. Leave it to an inbred, uneducated moron to misuse the language to describe the simultaneous occurrence of two events that cannot occur simultaneously, not realizing how obvious his mistake is or how glaringly it exposes his idiocy. Stick with your pre-school level insults,... at least then you would have experience to draw on. 16 years of experience, to be exact.
@PinkOld Actually fucktard, my original statement pointed-out how idiotically Penn presented a flawed argument. Seems you are such an fanboy of this idiot that: not only could you not see the gaping holes in his argument but you took personal offence at the mere thought of someone pointing-out your hero's idiocy. Sorry that you're too much the inbred, uneducated trailer trash to see something so obvious.
Is your aircraft carrier or nuclear weapon a weapon "in common use [by the people] for lawful purposes”, and therefore protected by 2 A. as per the Heller decision? I don't know about your neighborhood, but nobody around my way has any of that sort of ordnance, nor could we afford to buy such “arms”, even collectively.
Some people forget that the founding fathers weren't thinking of machine guns that could fire 900 rounds a minute when they wrote the second ammendment. They had guns that fired one round a minute.
@GuerrillaSauce Except "the right of the People to keep and bear arms" is only recognized in relation to the concept of having "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State". The right to keep and bear arms is not recognized as being an independent right. If the Framers had meant it to stand alone they would have said "The People have a right to keep and bear arms." and would have made no reference to the militia or the security of the State.
@tehwarlockuser The Founding Fathers also didn't think of swear words when it comes to the First Amendment, either. Not only that, but they didn't think of television, cameras, or all of the technology we have today when it comes to the First Amendment, too.
To be consistent, let's apply the same principle you wish to apply to the 2 A. to the rights of free speech and press. That would restrict those rights to the technology “in them days”. That would be the hand-operated printing press, and the megaphone. No freedom of speech or press would apply in radio, TV, movies, videos, nor of course the internet.
HELLER dismissed this "bordering on frivolous" argument.. Read the Heller decision for yourself.
@ValentineSmith61 I'm not proposing we take the constitution the way the founding fathers wrote it, you misunderstood me. I'm saying that they could not perceive a time when we would have the weapons that we do now. We should be reforming the constitution to fit the technology of our age. If I were to make a proposal it would be that high cap magazines be banned for civilians, and remove the gun show loophole that allows anyone someone to buy a weapon without a background...among other things
@tehwarlockuser Ban High Cap Mags from civilians. Make us Pray to the Government. The 2nd amendment is to protect US from Our Government. Name just one time when a Government banned or restricted the citizens the ability to protect themselves and Crime did NOT Skyrocket OR the Government mass killed Millions. And don't say our govenrment won't do that. Check out Waco Texas, they killed those people, Burned them out and shot women and childern as the tried to escape the burning building.
@tfrank888 Don't need a high cap magazine to murder people, just the desire too. Banning firearms only ensures that law abiding citizens have even less options to defend themselves should something happen.
@mistereveready Could not agree with you more. All they want to do is make Sheep out of us. With no way to defend ourselves we will depend on the Government even more. People think that will give them security. The Governent is as bad or worse then the criminal with the gun. I'll keep my guns and defend my family. It's harder for the Bad Guys iwhen they don't know if a person is a Sheep or a Lion.
@tfrank888 Seep, the root of the problem are the people. If we were all in bubble wrap, people would still be trying to smother and beat each other to death. But not all of us have safe rooms or body guards, nor instant spawn police. Firearms are a very effective way at stopping/deterring intruders/muggers. I just wish training was mandatory when buying one. I see far too many buy a firearm and never read about gun safety or even fire the weapon. Banning would be as effective as prohibition was.
@mistereveready I have to Agree with you on the training. I have my CPL in Michigan and we are required to take a class and a full background check by the police to carry conceled. There should be a little more training, i have some but most don't. People that get a permit to purchase and NOT carry conceled are not required to take the training class. My weapon has saved me TWICE, never drew it but they knew I had it and backed off.
@tfrank888 Word. I know mine help stop my old truck from being stolen. I opted not to shoot the perpetrator, but I never saw that fucker again. He ran like hell. I don't advocate scaring people with firearms. I didn't want to go through all the trouble required had I dropped the hammer if i didnt have to. I am, and rightfully so, responsible for every round I put down range. But also there are some fucked up laws where if defending self or property the criminal has more rights than the victim.
@mistereveready I am 57 with a bad hip, I had a kid in his mid to late 20's threaten to Kill me with a pipe. He started getting out of his truck and I screatched to get his attention. I just put my hand behind my back and said "Son. if you get out of your truck you are going tohave a REAL BAD DAY. we looked at each other and he finally drove away. In Detroit I had a Gang Bange stand infront of my truck and show me his weapon. I had mine in my hand. he smiled at me and walked away.
@tfrank888 Word. My old man used to drive bus and he's seen a number of situations diffused similar to that. 2 guys wanted to beat up some old man because he wouldn't give up his seat. The old man let them know that it would cost them their lives if they insisted on using violence. The two thugs eagerly got off the bus. I think far too many people think that all people respond to politeness and are willing to talk through their problems. If talking can work, do it, if not solve it fast and safe.
@tehwarlockuser most people that sell guns without a background in guns shows are private owners and collectors which don't have the paper work to do the background check or the technology to do it like dealers have.most people at the gun shows will ask for people to show id when they by the gun and that it.
@ValentineSmith61 Also, in no way did I say we should restrict our rights to the way they were interpreted when they were written. That would defeat the purpose of having ammendments, and a judicial system to interpret laws. In fact it would make large portions of our government unnecessary.
The second amendment is outdated. You have to remember this is when there was shit to shoot at in America. Like Bears and Indians and shit. Guns only cause problems now.
@Goth3m3 You don't think there's stuff to shoot now? Like maybe a shooter in your immediate vicinity, or somebody that's about to rape you? Sure you could call the cops, who arrive AFTER the suspects get away.
"Guns only cause problems now" You put the blame on an inanimate object. Gun bans cause MORE problems? Like not being able to defend yourself against said shooter or rapist?
I agree, and WHY do people in movies after they defend themselves with a gun, throw it away, like they feel guilty about shooting someone who was trying to kill them?
Not so fast, your reasoning for the 2nd ammendment does not give the complete truth. The founding fathers did not want the government to reign control, just as the British did over the colonies. The 2nd Am. was created so the people could rebel if government ever became too strong.
Compared with people of the SAME sex, race, age, and neighborhood, those who keep a gun in the home are nearly three times more likely to be murdered in the home- nearly always by a family member or close acquaintance. For every self-defense use of a gun in the home, there are 4 unintentional shootings, 7 criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides (Kellerman & others, cited by Myers).
We don't need that pesky 2nd ammendment. It's a complete waste of time. Why did those guys back in 1787 even bother putting stuff like that in that silly document anyway? Let's recite that other thing that was written in 1892... "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United NATIONS of the world..." oooops, sorry, Just getting ready for what's to come...
Remember, bystanders stopped Jared Loughner when he stopped to reload his pistol. If he'd been forced to reload after 10 rounds instead of 30, he would have killed a lot less people.
militia also means a group and not just the military. when it says a well regulated militia it means a group of people to protect their state and not the govt.
@mike14523 You are correct, The :militia: is NEVER the military! The militia is comprised of the civilian populace. The defining point is that the military is government funded while the militia is civilian funded. The military is for enforcing the government's will, not the people's. The militia os for the people to defend themselves from enemies both foreign and domestic.
@TangoDown229 Precisely! Not to mention that the origin of the 2nd Am. is so that if the time ever came that our government became too oppressive, the people (aka militia) could stand up against them. Like the Separation of Powers, listed in the Constitution's Article 1, it's meant to prevent a tyrannical ruler from taking over the entire country (in other words, it's meant to keep a free state)
@TangoDown229 Wrong! Article 1: Section 8, of United States Constitution gives to Congress (and only Congress) the power "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;". Therefore, the militia was expected to enforce the laws of The United States, it was not meant to 'protect' those who did not agree with those laws.
@TangoDown229 Art. 1: Sect. 8 also give to Congress the power "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;".
@FatFred2U it's quite obvious after reading some of your diatribe that you fail to realize that the "Militia" & the "Military" are NOT the same entity. Militia's are for protecting the people and/or the country against many things; one of which is a government acting in tyranny! A government that dares to enfringe upon or hinder the Rights & Freedoms of law-abiding citizens is a government in tyranny for example.
@TangoDown229 Sorry, but the fact that you are not familiar with the Constitution does not automatically invalidate any argument that is based on the actual contents of the Constitution. Nor is your ignorance of the Constitution sufficient grounds to assert the authority of definitions which directly contradict the Constitution. Please, read Article 1: Section 8 before expressing those of YOUR opinions which contradict the Constitution.
@TangoDown229 The purpose of the militia, as described in Article 1: Section 8 of the Constitution, was to enforce the law, put down insurrections and repel invasions. Therefore, in the minds of The Framers, the militia was the military. Or more specifically, the militia was a temporary government-controlled military force until the Government acquired the means to create and maintain a permanent GOVERNMENT-CONTROLLED military force (a.k.a. The Army) to replace the militia.
You begin with a constricted definition of the “purpose of the Militia”, which is only the stipulated FEDERAL purposes for which Congress is PERMITTED to use the Militia, set forth in the Constitution. This is only the “purpose” of the Militia from the restricted viewpoint of the power of Congress to use it, and not the total purpose.
You are partly right. The militia is a military force, available for the use of Congress for those purposes stipulated. BUT-----If you look above the paragraph you referenced, you will find that Congress is also given the power “To raise and support armies . . .” . Therefore (I conclude) it is wrong to suppose the Framers to have considered the “militia” and “army” one and the same.
You continue to state more specifically that --- in your mind-reading of the Framers--- the militia was just an interim, Government-controlled military force, to be used only until it could be replaced by a permanent Government-controlled military force,”(a.k.a. The Army) to replace the militia.”
How much “Government-control” did Congress have over the Militia? If you look below the paragraph you referenced, you will see that Congress governs “such Part of them [Militia] as may be employed in the Service of the United States”, i.e. only FEDERALIZED Militia, mobilized under those conditions stipulated in the Constitution, are subject to control by Congress.
Cont(6) Further, that same paragraph of the Constitution provides that it is the states which retain the power to appoint the officers who command the Militia, NOT Congress.
A “Standing Army” was considered a great danger to the young Republic, and viewed with suspicion. The people had suffered long enough under George III who “kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures”. The Founders saw a standing army under Federal control a potential danger of domestic tyranny. They wished to avoid such an army as much as possible, and rigidly control it when it was a necessity.
The goal of the Founders (as you have presumed to define it for them), to “replace the militia” with “the Army”, has not been achieved. After more than 2 centuries as a Republic, we still stand --- proudly--- with not only a “Standing Army”, but with our militia alive and well, still serving both the several states and the USA in two well-defined classes.
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
@ValentineSmith61 The first edition of The U.S. Code was not completed and published until 1926. Thus your reference has no relevance to a debate regarding what was meant by the Founding Fathers when they drafted the Constitution more than a century prior. For fuck's sake, do you put any thought into your argument? Do you have even the slightest clue what it is you're arguing about?
Jesus Christ Almighty --- did Wal-Mart have a sale on Stupid Pills or is your defect congenital?
@ValentineSmith61 While Congress was given the authority to "raise and support armies", it did not have the MEANS to do so. This is something I have already referred to and something you should have researched before concocting another empty argument which ignores HISTORICAL FACT, in a vain attempt to misconstrue what I have said and what I meant when I said it. Perhaps you can explain why Congress did not immediately create The Army which it was authorized raise. Research and facts, please!
@ValentineSmith61 Again, if The Constitution specifies "any local or state-wide purpose of the militia", then please supply the exact quote. Any pre-existing uses (those which predate the War) are not cited in the Constitution and are not recognized by the Constitution as alternate purposes for the militia. You accuse me of incorrectly reading the minds of the Framers, after I supply references and context, but what do you do present but non-specific and unsupported prattle?
The Constitution contains no statement that I know of, concerning any purposes or use of the Militia other than the stipulated uses Congress is permitted.
Nor does it need to do so.
It simply does not prohibit other purposes, and that is enough.
ValentineSmith61 wrote, "The Constitution contains no statement that I know of, concerning any purposes or use of the Militia other than the stipulated uses Congress is permitted."
Exactly the point I was making all along and the very thing you have wasted so much time and energy (and no intelligence) arguing against.
You could be a man and admit you've been wrong since the start, but I suspect you have neither the wits to recognize, nor the courage to admit, YOUR FAILURE!
Out of context – the rest of the statement is: “ Nor does [the Constitution] need to do so. It simply does not prohibit other purposes [or uses of the Militia, by the several states], and that is enough.”
There is no Constitutional prohibition of any use or purpose of the Militia by the several states.
The only benefit I gained from my attempt to discuss the matter with you, was finding a website that lists the states and the pertinent state constitutional provision for the Governor to use the militia. There are plenty of non-Federal uses and purposes of the militia listed there
@ValentineSmith61 Well, perhaps, when you've finished memorizing all of the State's Constitutions, hoping to glean some trivial data you can recall during your next foray into internet trolling, you might consider familiarizing yourself with The Constitution of the UNITED States. It is, after all, what originated this debate and what this debate is still concerned with. Even a six year old would have figured that out by now.
More bluster, projection of your own trickery, attempted distraction by insults, straw arguments and attempts to change the direction of debate. Typical troll behavior.
You pretend not to realize that Georgia and all those other “free and independent states” who were about to ratify the federal Constitution and become the UNITED States of America, already had established state militias, and the U S Constitution guaranteed their continuing control of THEIR Militias by the several states.
The Constitution specifies that ONLY the states could appoint the officers who commanded THEIR Militia, and granted to Congress PERMISSION to “borrow” those state militias ONLY for the purposes stipulated in the Constitution, while limiting Congressional power to govern ONLY “such Part of [the Militia] as may be employed in the Service of the United States”, and no OTHER PART of the Militia.
“Therefore, in the minds of The Framers, the militia was the military. Or more specifically, the militia was a temporary government-controlled military force until the Government acquired the means to create and maintain a permanent GOVERNMENT-CONTROLLED military force (a.k.a. The Army) to replace the militia.” (EMPHASIS in original)
Not only was the Militia never under the federal 'control' of Congress, even when the “Government acquired the means to create and maintain a permanent GOVERNMENT-CONTROLLED military force (a.k.a. The Army) . . .” , It did NOT “replace the Militia”. The Militia still stands more than 2 centuries later, even though we have a “standing Army”. Not bad endurance for what you CLAIM was supposed to be a “temporary . . . force”.
@ValentineSmith61 The National Guard is not, and has never been, the militia. Leave it to you, to try and divert the debate along another irrelevant tangent. Try again LOSER!
I'll credit your energy: so many FAILURES and yet you still haven't figured-out when to quit.
You posted a purposely stupid statement. Trolls like you offer such idiocy, and expect to disrupt any honest discussion of the issues by precisely the tactics you employ. You have nothing to bring to any discussion. Others can make their evaluations of your statements, and I expect they will conclude as I have:
@ValentineSmith61 Oh gee, what's next for Mr. Shit-For-Brains, who hasn't a clue about what a debate is, will he tell me when and where I can respond? Get-off your friggin' high horse. The bonafide morons like you, are why pro-gun advocacy has the reputation of attracting the lowest-forms of human intelligence.
Do Mr. Darwin a favour and lick an electric fence.
Don't worry, it won't hurt: you need a brain to feel pain.
Or crawl back under your rock and open a big ol' can of STFU!
For example, Georgia's constitution says: “The Governor shall have power, in case of invasion, disaster, insurrection, riot, breach of the peace, combination to oppose the enforcement of the law by force or violence, or imminent danger thereof, or other grave emergency, to order all or any part of the organized
militia into the active service of the state . . .”.
@ValentineSmith61 You're so determined to say something you can't even bother to think if it makes sense, or has any relevancy.
Answer me this Strawman, When was the U.S. Constitution passed into law? When did Georgia join the Union? When was last time you had a CAT scan to verify your two viable brain cells were still functioning?
@ValentineSmith61 Keep trying to change the direction of the debate. It only reproves what I have said all along. You have nothing of worth to add to the debate and the best you can do to justify prolonging your involvement in it is to meander off on another irrelevant tangent.
Why don't you call your Congressional Rep. and tell him how disturbed you are ----- that these Governors are using THEIR militia for THEIR own purposes, quelling riots, responding to disasters, even drafting people from the unorganized militia into service with the organized militia, when the Constitution doesn't allow it?
Your latest is just more of your bluster, obfuscation, distraction with insults, straw arguments, out of context quotes, and projection of all your trickery on the challenger. In other words, you “outted [sic]” yourself as a troll.
@ValentineSmith61 Oh that's good dumbass. Use all the criticism I have already used on you (and proven) and try to claim them as your own. Not that anyone would expect originality from an inbred, mongoloid fucktard who needs to make 200 posts to say absolutely ZIP (except for the 15 posts where you inadvertently agreed with something I said -and leave it to a waste of sperm, like yourself, to not recognize he was repeatedly contradicting himself).
Sadly, you are one of those poor souls who try to compensate for their unsatisfactory lives by trolling. It is harmless enough, and your feigned outrage and ranting is amusing, until it becomes boring. But you should see a professional about your obsession with urine. I admit to some enjoyment in destroying the obviously (and now apparently intentionally) stupid statements you posted, but I won't waste any more time on you.
Freekin Jeebies moron, have you looked in the mirror lately?
You need to make twenty posts every time your pea-brain thinks it has something to say, and you call me obsessed? Obviously, the reason YouTube has imposed a character-limit hasn't seeped into that vacuous intellect of your because the only thing concise about it is your single digit IQ.
@ValentineSmith61 I know this next request will prove burdensome for someone who wants to argue without bothering to provide any evidence to support his views, but if you're going to quote me or assert what my meaning is, then take the time to know what you are saying. To wit: I did not "conclude" that in the minds of The Framers "the militia was the military". I stated that they regarded the militia as a temporary substitute until they acquired the means to raise a permanent standing army.
“The purpose of the militia, . . . was to enforce the law, put down insurrections and repel invasions. THEREFORE, ['as a result'] IN THE MINDS OF THE FRAMERS, THE MILITIA WAS THE MILITARY. Or more specifically, the militia was a temporary government-controlled military force . . .” (EMPHASIS ADDED).
@ValentineSmith61 Then please supply the exact quote from The Constitution which clearly states for which other purposes the militia was intended. This seems to be a recurring problem with you. You accuse me of being incorrect, yet fail to provide any proof of my mistake.
@ValentineSmith61 1. My remark, to which you reference, does not have quotation marks, which should indicate to you that it is not a direct (literal) quote. Sorry, if the language conventions are confusing to you. However, I would like for you to explain how my 'wording' alters the meaning or intent of the original. Or how that led you to conclude that my comments "reflect some serious mis-[sic]conceptions".
It is apparent that you are incapable of offering a rational explanation and defense of your statements, so you resort to the “octopus defense” --- squirt a cloud of ink, accuse anyone who dares challenge you as a troll, demand your challenger defend his challenge, throw in some tangential insults as a further distraction,and hope to escape in the confusion.
I never took your remark as a “direct (literal) quote”. I said your remark made reference to one of the “powers of Congress” in Art 1 Sec. 8, and I quoted the original. I did not say you misquoted the Constitution, I said you failed to comprehend it. Then I continued, to show you HOW and WHY I thought you were wrong in your statement.
The 'wording' in your paraphrase is secondary. It is your lack of comprehension, as evidenced in your statement, and delineated in my reply to your statement, that is primary.
It is time for you to respond to the issues I raised in that reply, if you can. I have entertained your avoidance of a defense of your statement long enough.
Defend your statement, and avoid “ 'outting' [sic]” yourself as “just another internet troll looking for an argument to be involved in, even though he/she has nothing of value to add to the debate.”
@ValentineSmith61 Look idiot, I am the only one, of us two, has defended anything I've said. You continue to avoid that FACT in your failing attempt to prove yourself as anything more than another internet troll looking for an argument to be involved in. I don't need to 'out' you,... you do that every time you spew more of your ignorant nonsense.
@ValentineSmith61 No dumbass, it was an unintentional omission. Only a complete ass, such as yourself, would have missed that, while trying to distract attention away from his own ignorance.
Btw, try looking-up the definitions for "refer" and "reference", and see if the not-so-subtle differences can permeate the granite that protects your pea-brain. Your attempt to be "captious" is ironic since the whole of your argument has relied on self-righteous bombast and intentional misrepresentation.
@FatFred2U I truly hope you are just a troll out to amuse himself. If that is not the case, please, get some help.
You have had your chance to defend your opinion of the purpose and use of the Militia. Instead, you wasted that opportunity (indicating you knew it was indefensible) and chose to play the game of attacking your challenger with bluster and obfuscation. Pitiful.
Good luck, and I hope your next encounter works out better. 42.
@ValentineSmith61 Dumbass, I defended my statements (repeatedly). Even though you chose the strawman approach from the outset, I gave you some credit for being able to some form of semi-intelligent rebuttal.That was a mistake, because not immediately taking you to task for your boorish tactics encouraged you to constantly change the direction of the debate and pretend that it was I who was engaging in unintelligent and disreputable conduct. You failed, now go crawl back under your rock.
There is a faulty argument here.
Brilliant idea #1 — Eliminate all guns from society. That way, there is no chance that guns can be used in crime.
Brilliant idea #2 — Eliminate all dogs from society. That way, there is no chance anyone will be attacked by a vicious dog.
The same sound mathematical model is the basis of both proposals, yet both proposals are absurd methods to achieve a good.
Anyone proposing #2 is rightly considered a fool. What should we think of those who propose #1?
LongPurple 3 days ago
ok, now i'm not a conservative, i don't ever claim to be one, i'm only a moderate at best, quick question, now let's say ...men, let's say for example, if your ex-wife broke into your home and had a weapon, would it be ok to shoot to kill her? I say, yes!
ir10031981 3 weeks ago
These days its rather silly to argue over the interpretation of the 2nd amendment. Considering that the Federal government has already effectively abolished it
They call it a "background check". However, a licensed gun dealer cannot, by law, sell anyone a firearm until they receive information from the government which tells them whether or not they can make the sale
That is permission & its implementation is the abolishing of the 2nd. If its a right, permission is not required & vise versa
Chuichupachichi 4 weeks ago
They completely skipped over the part about a 20 year old carrying an assault rifle around in downtown. The 2 amendment was meant for us to be able to defend ourselves from us being taken over by the Gov't not for us to just be able to flash guns around like morons and scare people.
Scott19seventy5 2 months ago
The people are the fucking militia!
madeye0 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
All gun lovers and owners listen up, Vote for Ron Paul for President 2012, and I promise you that your Second Amendments, specially Forth Amendments will absolutely be protected, and every gun that you might want to by or own that are deemed illegal buy the Obama Administration will not be banned! Ron Paul is 100% a Second Amendment supporter!
RoachBoySD 3 months ago
No, Penn. You don't quite get it right either, though you do get credit for being on the correct side of the issue.
The clause , 'being necessary to the security of a free state,' is a non-rrestrictive adjectival clause modifying its noun phrase, 'a well regulated militia.'
It means that it can be removed (the adjectival clause) without changing the fundamental meaning of the sentence. Like this:
'A well regulated militia, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.'
flithern 3 months ago
@flithern The core meaning of the 2nd Amendment defines the well regulated militia AS the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
flithern 3 months ago
@flithern
'being necessary to the security of a free state,' merely adds force to to the 'militia' phrase.
We live in a free state defended, in part, by the right of its people to have guns. Mind your manners, all of you (foreign invaders and governments alike) and there shouldn't be a problem.
flithern 3 months ago
these guys are fucking stupid we were the militia dumb shit not england. a militia cant fight very effectively if they don't have the same equipment as the tyrant they are fighting. can i please shoot them? can i? please?
cheesejerkys 3 months ago
can we borrow this video for our project
SuperBlackknight234 3 months ago
Wait a minute, if owning guns is a right. Why can't I just walk into a gun shop and demand a gun for free? It is my right after all.
Shonenut213 3 months ago
@Shonenut213 Its a right from the right winged libertarian perspective. Even human rights cost money from the right winged libertarian perspective.
gulbirk 3 months ago
all i have to say is if you want my ak-47 come and get it
kris6682 3 months ago
so if the consitution says it, it must be right..
Or in other words ""This book built our nation, therefore it is correct""
Hmm, it sounds very familiar to what a christian nutjob told me once.
gulbirk 3 months ago
@gulbirk That is only the assumption be against gun control. What you just did is make the assumption that the statement if "so if the consitution says it, it must be right" and didn't take into account the supporting statements for the Second Amendment. The support for the Second Amendment was actually explained in the video. The people have the right to own all guns to prevent any government from imposing its will on the people.
cubbiefn 3 months ago
@cubbiefn Yes, in other words. Its correct because the constitution says so.
Yet science and statistics clearly show that it normally leads to higher crime rates becaus its to easy to get armed. Another funny thing is that in countries where policemen are not armed, a lower % of criminals arm themselfe.
The government imposing its will on the people???? Dont you have a democrasy? Oh, I gues I was wrong. I was of the opinion that we, the people, elected our government.
gulbirk 3 months ago
@gulbirk While I'm glad you're actually trying to make real points now in your argument. I would like to know what qualifies your "Science and statistics"? Every statistic in the US that I've seen shows that in America is that when there are stricter gun control laws, crime rate goes up. Also, contries that have policemen that aren't armed simply aren't America, and maybe they have lower crime rates because they can't catch criminals without a gun. (Part 3 will be in the next comment).
cubbiefn 3 months ago
@gulbirk (Part 3) I would also like to point out that I do live in a democracy. However, democracies aren't fool proof. For example, did you know that Hitler began as an elected official. While I don't like much of what our govenrnment does right now, it certainly isn't as bad as the NAZI party. However, have looser gun control laws helps to ensure a non imposing government. Also, it applies to other governments trying to impose its will on the American people in, for example, an invasion.
cubbiefn 3 months ago
@cubbiefn Yes, every statistic in america. But if you look outside of america the pattern is quite clear.
The problem with america and guns right now is that if you de-legalise it in one state, there are simply to many illegal guns to buy, because the total amount of guns in the society is already way to high. Therefore, making it illegal on a state level OR a national level may not lead to less crime rates because there are too many guns in circulation.
gulbirk 3 months ago
@gulbirk
Yeah look at Switzerland.
madass888 2 months ago
@madass888 Swizerland is an exception. It hardly functions the way any other type of country does. To use it as an example just shows ignorance.
gulbirk 2 months ago
@gulbirk
You've already acknowledged that there are other factors besides gun ownership which have a significant effect on the gun crime rate. Which makes your whole statistical argument invalid.
madass888 2 months ago
@madass888 No it doesnt. What has an effect on it is HOW many guns exist in the society. And the amounts of guns existent in a society is highly dependent upon wether or not its legal to use guns.
gulbirk 2 months ago
@gulbirk
So you say, the gun crime rate (G) depends on the amount of privately owned guns(g). Switzerland has high private gun ownership yet the gun crime rate is low. Which means the gun crime rate also has to be depended on other variables(a,b,c..). You've acknowledged this yourself.
Now you want to find to relationship between G and g. But G=G(g,a,b,c...). So it's impossible to find this relationship with data of G and g only. So your statistical argument doesn't hold.
madass888 2 months ago
@madass888 Using Switzerland in any kind of arument what so ever (at least when you compeare it to other countries) is plain out stupid. Its an exception from most other countries, anyone who has studied politics can tell you that. Switzerland is not build up around, nor does it consist of the same kind of population any other country does. Pluss, I never said the gun kills on its own. I am arguing that having guns is pointless and does increase crime.
gulbirk 2 months ago
@gulbirk
I thought you wanted to use science and statistics?
madass888 2 months ago
@madass888 I do, but when the only country you can bring up to your defense is Switzerland then that tells me you dont have a frikin clue about the political situation. Its like claiming we should lower taxes because it works so good in Switzerland. Maybe you should study the population of Switzerland before you make idiotic claims like that.
gulbirk 2 months ago
@gulbirk
One exception is all that matters in science.
Switzerland has different variables (a,b,c...) which has a significant effect on G. So the relation ship between G and g can not be found, without a,b,c...
madass888 2 months ago
Real individual human rights are eternal...they don't change over time because the crucial, fundamental factor that they are based on , human beings and their nature AS humans,don't change over time. A human is as human today as he was in the time of Christ. The right to bear arms is as valid for an individual today as it was two hundred years ago in America or a thousand years ago anywhere....and it will still be just as valid ten thousand years from now if Humans still walk the Earth.
Riellysdad 6 months ago 12
@Riellysdad I'm sure the insanely high numbers of gun-related crime and violence has nothing to do with the fact that gun control is a "right". Most developed countries get on just fine without the need to legalize arms, I have no idea why you'd think it's a right worth defending..
SexDrugsMoreSex 2 months ago
@SexDrugsMoreSex ...Learn some history. Disarmed people are just victims waiting to be killed. Look what happened to the Armenians, the Jews etc etc....In the 20th century the Worlds Government's murdered over a 100 million of their own citizens...after making sure they were disarmed first. Google "Suzanna Gratia Hupp - What the Second Amendment is REALLY for". She's a true patriot and student of the constitution.
Riellysdad 2 months ago
@SexDrugsMoreSex ....The 2nd amendment exists to make sure all the others are kept and respected...
Riellysdad 2 months ago
@Riellysdad Amen! And Amen!
chaz706 1 month ago
Technically correct, I wont dispute that ever. The wording make it pretty clear that the people can't have the right infringed. However, I am a realist. Times have changed. Back in that day, that was a necessity because the nation was young, if something happened and things broke down we may have needed state and local militias! But now look at us, also look at weapons. Im not saying "omg ban all guns!" but its crazy to think we can be unlimited. Times are too diff for the literal wording of it
tiki2188 6 months ago
@tiki2188 Times have changed. In the time of the Framers, it was pretty rare for you to be attacked by an animal, hostile indian, or, gosh, a foreign power, yet they still believed that being able to defend oneself a fundamental right. Fast forward to today and while the odds of being attacked by animal, indian, or foreign power is just as rare, we now are more likely to be attacked by another person. During the LA Riots, Korean businessmen saved their stores with guns: Lesson learned.
BloodofPatriots 4 months ago
Isn't it saying, "because the state needs a well-armed militia, the people in that militia need guns?"
That's the way I read it...I'm not from the United States but it seems what they were saying was, the folks in the militia need guns.
HioPojac 7 months ago
@HioPojac a militia by definition would be those who are already armed; therefore it would be redundant to suggest that this amendment is spelling out the right of such a militia to carry guns. what this ammendment is declaring: is in prefacing the right of not only of states to defend themselves (against the federal government), but also for the people to likewise be armed for their own defense against the tyranny of any government-local, state or federal.
HermitintheRain 7 months ago
@HermitintheRain Right, I understand...thanks for the informative response
HioPojac 7 months ago
@HermitintheRain Very well said. Agree with you 100%. To many people just don't understand. Put to much into it. The founding fathers were very clear on what they wanted. It says what they meant. People spend to much time trying to determine what they many have meant, or what they think they may have meant. Just read the words, What does it say. Very Simple.
tfrank888 7 months ago
@HioPojac if one looks into the history of any nation; (take Japan for example who at one point in time made it illegal for the people of Japan to carry swords), you soon see the rise of tyranny in that nation where the people are left defenseless against such an enemy, who alone then is allowed to be armed. In the example of Japan, we then see the rise of specialize weapons training among the common people, which brought about unique weapons that were once only tools of a given trade.
HermitintheRain 7 months ago
@HermitintheRain the Preamble of the Constitution sets the stage for everything found in it:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
HermitintheRain 7 months ago
the 2nd Amendment, as well as everything else found in the Constitution, is that which is counted essential to the promotion and protection of that tranquility, defense, welfare, and liberty. Such enemies of this will be found at all levels of society from a next door neighbor to a local sheriff to a state governor and even to those in high office of government. The 2nd Amendment as part of the whole is simply meant to contribute its part to that stated in the Preamble.
HermitintheRain 7 months ago
I do believe that people should be able to have guns, just with regulations, with out regulations, nobody can say that you can't carry a large automatic weapon into a public place and use it for the wrong reasons, sure, I bet you are smart enough to not shoot anybody, but there are still bad people in this world and it almost makes killing that much easier.
dyl2413 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
you people ever wonder why you don't speak japanese? some of you will understand what I am saying. some of you will never admit to knowing.
rangerbull 7 months ago 4
I think Wal-Mart does have stupid pills on sale on a regular basis... And they never run out...
TheRokit76 8 months ago
The version of the 2A passed by Congress states, "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."
Maybe Penn can explain all the "extra" commas and the different capitalizations (note "people" is not capitalized). Doesn't this mean that The Framers did actually "fuck-up the words" Penn. Or is it your pea-brained argument that is fucked-up?
FatFred2U 8 months ago
Penn Jillette is an IDIOT.
The 2A does not protect the People from having their right to bear arms being taken away by the militia. That's just an idiotic interpretation since the militia would have no purpose if it's members did not bear arms.
Did he even spend three seconds before concocting such a moronic argument?
FatFred2U 8 months ago
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State," is the preamble -it states the problem - whereas "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." is the operative clause -it presents the action that resolves the problem. Therefore the right was recognized only as a way for the State to protect itself. Which matters because the State did not have the means to form and maintain a standing army. The USSC erred in it's decision on "Heller Vs etc.,"
FatFred2U 8 months ago
@FatFred2U
Translation: I am an arrogant anti-gun asshat who will vigorously lie my stupid ass off just to get my agenda out there.
Fuck off.
PinkOld 8 months ago
@PinkOld Perhaps you could explain to me:
1. why you think I am a. arrogant, b. anti-gun, c. an asshat
2. where I have lied
3. why my ass should be anything but stupid (is that where you keep your brains?)
4. what you think "my agenda" is.
5. how the confused and uninformed rantings of persons such as Penn Jillette and yourself does anything to dispel the notion that "pro-gun" is a position held by inbred, uneducated trailer trash?
FatFred2U 8 months ago
@FatFred2U
Go fuck yourself, you shit-eating, gun-grabbing fuckstick.
PinkOld 8 months ago
@PinkOld Like i said, inbred, uneducated trailer trash.
Why would anyone expect idiots do anything but show-off what idiots they are.
FatFred2U 8 months ago
@FatFred2U Oh, by the way Pinko, I fully support any law that grants you the right to own a firearm. With your tendency to point the barrel at yourself before pulling the trigger, granting you that right could do nothing less than improve the gene pool. Hopefully the rest of your clan will, likewise, utilize firearms for the same noble purpose.
FatFred2U 8 months ago
@FatFred2U
Suck the snot end of my fuckstick.
And if I were to ever meet you, you would suddenly learn the meaning of "minute of angle."
PinkOld 8 months ago
Comment removed
FatFred2U 8 months ago
@PinkOld 1. "Fuckstick" is exactly the kind of grade school terminology I would expect from a mongoloid specimen such as yourself. In your case, it is nothing but a euphemism, since you will never find a woman desperate enough to have sex with an inbred, uneducated piece of trailer trash like you. And no Jethro, weekly trysts with your right hand do not make you any less of 43 year old virgin.
FatFred2U 8 months ago
@FatFred2U
Whatever
I'll be saying that as I dump a healthy load of jism down your already overstretched throat.
PinkOld 8 months ago
@PinkOld Based on your rebuttals, it seems your sexual fantasies come down to having sex with men and german shepherds. Too bad they, as well as women, will never be your willing partners. So I guess, that means you and unfuckedstick will be spending another Friday night at home with Righty.
Sooooo sad for you, so glad for the gene pool.
FatFred2U 8 months ago
@PinkOld 2. Leave it to an inbred, uneducated moron to misuse the language to describe the simultaneous occurrence of two events that cannot occur simultaneously, not realizing how obvious his mistake is or how glaringly it exposes his idiocy. Stick with your pre-school level insults,... at least then you would have experience to draw on. 16 years of experience, to be exact.
FatFred2U 8 months ago
@FatFred2U
You started it, dick cheese.
Now, go run along now.
Oh, and don't forget to tell your skanky mom she has an oversized pussy.
PinkOld 8 months ago
@PinkOld Actually fucktard, my original statement pointed-out how idiotically Penn presented a flawed argument. Seems you are such an fanboy of this idiot that: not only could you not see the gaping holes in his argument but you took personal offence at the mere thought of someone pointing-out your hero's idiocy. Sorry that you're too much the inbred, uneducated trailer trash to see something so obvious.
FatFred2U 8 months ago
@FatFred2U
Oh, and please do us all a favor and quit felching German Shepherds.
PinkOld 8 months ago
The last four words of the video make this guy a boss politician!
DiscoDude82 8 months ago
I believe that we should have the right to buy an aircraft carrier, and nuclear weapons.
EvansGuy81186 8 months ago
@EvansGuy81186
Is your aircraft carrier or nuclear weapon a weapon "in common use [by the people] for lawful purposes”, and therefore protected by 2 A. as per the Heller decision? I don't know about your neighborhood, but nobody around my way has any of that sort of ordnance, nor could we afford to buy such “arms”, even collectively.
ValentineSmith61 8 months ago 5
@EvansGuy81186
No need to worry though. If TSHTF, we will have a situation of :
Some guns = more guns --- More guns = bigger guns --- Bigger guns = equality of weaponry with the enemy.
ValentineSmith61 8 months ago 2
A collective right interpretation of the second amendment totally ignores history.
Patriot3332 8 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
I agree with his point here, but why does he have to express himself like a whiny bitch on steroids?
1GodOnlyOne 8 months ago
Comment removed
1GodOnlyOne 8 months ago
Some people forget that the founding fathers weren't thinking of machine guns that could fire 900 rounds a minute when they wrote the second ammendment. They had guns that fired one round a minute.
tehwarlockuser 9 months ago
Comment removed
GuerrillaSauce 9 months ago 2
@GuerrillaSauce Except "the right of the People to keep and bear arms" is only recognized in relation to the concept of having "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State". The right to keep and bear arms is not recognized as being an independent right. If the Framers had meant it to stand alone they would have said "The People have a right to keep and bear arms." and would have made no reference to the militia or the security of the State.
FatFred2U 8 months ago
@tehwarlockuser And?
1GodOnlyOne 8 months ago
@tehwarlockuser The Founding Fathers also didn't think of swear words when it comes to the First Amendment, either. Not only that, but they didn't think of television, cameras, or all of the technology we have today when it comes to the First Amendment, too.
DeadFishFactory 8 months ago
@tehwarlockuser no, the founding fathers were thinking of ANY GUN, available, at any time period, dipshit
EvansGuy81186 8 months ago 3
Comment removed
ValentineSmith61 8 months ago
@tehwarlockuser
To be consistent, let's apply the same principle you wish to apply to the 2 A. to the rights of free speech and press. That would restrict those rights to the technology “in them days”. That would be the hand-operated printing press, and the megaphone. No freedom of speech or press would apply in radio, TV, movies, videos, nor of course the internet.
HELLER dismissed this "bordering on frivolous" argument.. Read the Heller decision for yourself.
ValentineSmith61 8 months ago 4
@ValentineSmith61 I'm not proposing we take the constitution the way the founding fathers wrote it, you misunderstood me. I'm saying that they could not perceive a time when we would have the weapons that we do now. We should be reforming the constitution to fit the technology of our age. If I were to make a proposal it would be that high cap magazines be banned for civilians, and remove the gun show loophole that allows anyone someone to buy a weapon without a background...among other things
tehwarlockuser 7 months ago
@tehwarlockuser Ban High Cap Mags from civilians. Make us Pray to the Government. The 2nd amendment is to protect US from Our Government. Name just one time when a Government banned or restricted the citizens the ability to protect themselves and Crime did NOT Skyrocket OR the Government mass killed Millions. And don't say our govenrment won't do that. Check out Waco Texas, they killed those people, Burned them out and shot women and childern as the tried to escape the burning building.
tfrank888 7 months ago 2
@tfrank888 Don't need a high cap magazine to murder people, just the desire too. Banning firearms only ensures that law abiding citizens have even less options to defend themselves should something happen.
mistereveready 7 months ago
@mistereveready Could not agree with you more. All they want to do is make Sheep out of us. With no way to defend ourselves we will depend on the Government even more. People think that will give them security. The Governent is as bad or worse then the criminal with the gun. I'll keep my guns and defend my family. It's harder for the Bad Guys iwhen they don't know if a person is a Sheep or a Lion.
tfrank888 7 months ago
@tfrank888 Seep, the root of the problem are the people. If we were all in bubble wrap, people would still be trying to smother and beat each other to death. But not all of us have safe rooms or body guards, nor instant spawn police. Firearms are a very effective way at stopping/deterring intruders/muggers. I just wish training was mandatory when buying one. I see far too many buy a firearm and never read about gun safety or even fire the weapon. Banning would be as effective as prohibition was.
mistereveready 7 months ago
@mistereveready I have to Agree with you on the training. I have my CPL in Michigan and we are required to take a class and a full background check by the police to carry conceled. There should be a little more training, i have some but most don't. People that get a permit to purchase and NOT carry conceled are not required to take the training class. My weapon has saved me TWICE, never drew it but they knew I had it and backed off.
tfrank888 7 months ago
@tfrank888 Word. I know mine help stop my old truck from being stolen. I opted not to shoot the perpetrator, but I never saw that fucker again. He ran like hell. I don't advocate scaring people with firearms. I didn't want to go through all the trouble required had I dropped the hammer if i didnt have to. I am, and rightfully so, responsible for every round I put down range. But also there are some fucked up laws where if defending self or property the criminal has more rights than the victim.
mistereveready 7 months ago
@mistereveready I am 57 with a bad hip, I had a kid in his mid to late 20's threaten to Kill me with a pipe. He started getting out of his truck and I screatched to get his attention. I just put my hand behind my back and said "Son. if you get out of your truck you are going tohave a REAL BAD DAY. we looked at each other and he finally drove away. In Detroit I had a Gang Bange stand infront of my truck and show me his weapon. I had mine in my hand. he smiled at me and walked away.
tfrank888 7 months ago
@tfrank888 Word. My old man used to drive bus and he's seen a number of situations diffused similar to that. 2 guys wanted to beat up some old man because he wouldn't give up his seat. The old man let them know that it would cost them their lives if they insisted on using violence. The two thugs eagerly got off the bus. I think far too many people think that all people respond to politeness and are willing to talk through their problems. If talking can work, do it, if not solve it fast and safe.
mistereveready 7 months ago
@mistereveready The people that believe everyone responds to kindness have never been around blacks.
BloodofPatriots 4 months ago
@tehwarlockuser most people that sell guns without a background in guns shows are private owners and collectors which don't have the paper work to do the background check or the technology to do it like dealers have.most people at the gun shows will ask for people to show id when they by the gun and that it.
mike14523 7 months ago
@ValentineSmith61 Also, in no way did I say we should restrict our rights to the way they were interpreted when they were written. That would defeat the purpose of having ammendments, and a judicial system to interpret laws. In fact it would make large portions of our government unnecessary.
tehwarlockuser 7 months ago
The second amendment is outdated. You have to remember this is when there was shit to shoot at in America. Like Bears and Indians and shit. Guns only cause problems now.
Goth3m3 9 months ago
@Goth3m3 You don't think there's stuff to shoot now? Like maybe a shooter in your immediate vicinity, or somebody that's about to rape you? Sure you could call the cops, who arrive AFTER the suspects get away.
"Guns only cause problems now" You put the blame on an inanimate object. Gun bans cause MORE problems? Like not being able to defend yourself against said shooter or rapist?
SuaveTito 8 months ago 2
Just look at Switzerland: most heavily armed nation in the world, and virtually no gun violence. Hmmm.
DeadFishFactory 9 months ago 3
@DeadFishFactory ...and no war, and no invasions from foreign aggressors... Hmmmm....
1GodOnlyOne 8 months ago
@DeadFishFactory I think you're on to something :D
SuaveTito 8 months ago
I agree, and WHY do people in movies after they defend themselves with a gun, throw it away, like they feel guilty about shooting someone who was trying to kill them?
libertyphoenix777 9 months ago
Not so fast, your reasoning for the 2nd ammendment does not give the complete truth. The founding fathers did not want the government to reign control, just as the British did over the colonies. The 2nd Am. was created so the people could rebel if government ever became too strong.
davedemp985 10 months ago 2
Here are some fun facts for you:
Compared with people of the SAME sex, race, age, and neighborhood, those who keep a gun in the home are nearly three times more likely to be murdered in the home- nearly always by a family member or close acquaintance. For every self-defense use of a gun in the home, there are 4 unintentional shootings, 7 criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides (Kellerman & others, cited by Myers).
maximum411 10 months ago
We don't need that pesky 2nd ammendment. It's a complete waste of time. Why did those guys back in 1787 even bother putting stuff like that in that silly document anyway? Let's recite that other thing that was written in 1892... "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United NATIONS of the world..." oooops, sorry, Just getting ready for what's to come...
outlawracer2229 10 months ago
A Government that fears an armed populace is a Government to be feared - Thomas Jefferson
dvldok8425 10 months ago
well yes
nsdtr01 10 months ago
Remember, bystanders stopped Jared Loughner when he stopped to reload his pistol. If he'd been forced to reload after 10 rounds instead of 30, he would have killed a lot less people.
Wintermute01001 10 months ago
We need to start a movement to overturn the 1986 machine gun ban.
desertarsenalist 10 months ago 2
militia also means a group and not just the military. when it says a well regulated militia it means a group of people to protect their state and not the govt.
mike14523 10 months ago
@mike14523 You are correct, The :militia: is NEVER the military! The militia is comprised of the civilian populace. The defining point is that the military is government funded while the militia is civilian funded. The military is for enforcing the government's will, not the people's. The militia os for the people to defend themselves from enemies both foreign and domestic.
TangoDown229 10 months ago
@TangoDown229 Precisely! Not to mention that the origin of the 2nd Am. is so that if the time ever came that our government became too oppressive, the people (aka militia) could stand up against them. Like the Separation of Powers, listed in the Constitution's Article 1, it's meant to prevent a tyrannical ruler from taking over the entire country (in other words, it's meant to keep a free state)
SuaveTito 10 months ago 2
@SuaveTito AMEN!
TangoDown229 10 months ago
@TangoDown229 Wrong! Article 1: Section 8, of United States Constitution gives to Congress (and only Congress) the power "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;". Therefore, the militia was expected to enforce the laws of The United States, it was not meant to 'protect' those who did not agree with those laws.
FatFred2U 8 months ago
@FatFred2U WOW! All that "hard work" and still oyu're ncorrect! *LOL*
TangoDown229 8 months ago
@TangoDown229 Art. 1: Sect. 8 also give to Congress the power "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;".
FatFred2U 8 months ago
@FatFred2U it's quite obvious after reading some of your diatribe that you fail to realize that the "Militia" & the "Military" are NOT the same entity. Militia's are for protecting the people and/or the country against many things; one of which is a government acting in tyranny! A government that dares to enfringe upon or hinder the Rights & Freedoms of law-abiding citizens is a government in tyranny for example.
TangoDown229 8 months ago
@TangoDown229 Sorry, but the fact that you are not familiar with the Constitution does not automatically invalidate any argument that is based on the actual contents of the Constitution. Nor is your ignorance of the Constitution sufficient grounds to assert the authority of definitions which directly contradict the Constitution. Please, read Article 1: Section 8 before expressing those of YOUR opinions which contradict the Constitution.
FatFred2U 8 months ago
@TangoDown229 The purpose of the militia, as described in Article 1: Section 8 of the Constitution, was to enforce the law, put down insurrections and repel invasions. Therefore, in the minds of The Framers, the militia was the military. Or more specifically, the militia was a temporary government-controlled military force until the Government acquired the means to create and maintain a permanent GOVERNMENT-CONTROLLED military force (a.k.a. The Army) to replace the militia.
FatFred2U 8 months ago
@FatFred2U
I find your comment reflects some serious mis-conceptions.
To begin with, let's look at the text of the Constitution (Art 1 Sec. 8) which you referenced:
(Powers of Congress)
“To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.”
ValentineSmith61 8 months ago
@ValentineSmith61
Cont (1)
You begin with a constricted definition of the “purpose of the Militia”, which is only the stipulated FEDERAL purposes for which Congress is PERMITTED to use the Militia, set forth in the Constitution. This is only the “purpose” of the Militia from the restricted viewpoint of the power of Congress to use it, and not the total purpose.
ValentineSmith61 8 months ago
@ValentineSmith61
Cont (2)
It ignores any local or state-wide purpose of the militia----- purposes which pre-existed any Federal use by Congress authorized by the Constitution.
Based on those stipulated, limited Federal purposes, “Therefore, [you somehow conclude] in the minds of The Framers, the militia was the military.”
ValentineSmith61 8 months ago
@ValentineSmith61
Cont (3)
You are partly right. The militia is a military force, available for the use of Congress for those purposes stipulated. BUT-----If you look above the paragraph you referenced, you will find that Congress is also given the power “To raise and support armies . . .” . Therefore (I conclude) it is wrong to suppose the Framers to have considered the “militia” and “army” one and the same.
ValentineSmith61 8 months ago
@ValentineSmith61
Cont(4)
You continue to state more specifically that --- in your mind-reading of the Framers--- the militia was just an interim, Government-controlled military force, to be used only until it could be replaced by a permanent Government-controlled military force,”(a.k.a. The Army) to replace the militia.”
ValentineSmith61 8 months ago
@ValentineSmith61
Cont(5)
How much “Government-control” did Congress have over the Militia? If you look below the paragraph you referenced, you will see that Congress governs “such Part of them [Militia] as may be employed in the Service of the United States”, i.e. only FEDERALIZED Militia, mobilized under those conditions stipulated in the Constitution, are subject to control by Congress.
ValentineSmith61 8 months ago
@ValentineSmith61
Cont(6) Further, that same paragraph of the Constitution provides that it is the states which retain the power to appoint the officers who command the Militia, NOT Congress.
ValentineSmith61 8 months ago
@ValentineSmith61
Cont(7)
A “Standing Army” was considered a great danger to the young Republic, and viewed with suspicion. The people had suffered long enough under George III who “kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures”. The Founders saw a standing army under Federal control a potential danger of domestic tyranny. They wished to avoid such an army as much as possible, and rigidly control it when it was a necessity.
ValentineSmith61 8 months ago
@ValentineSmith61
Cont(8)
The goal of the Founders (as you have presumed to define it for them), to “replace the militia” with “the Army”, has not been achieved. After more than 2 centuries as a Republic, we still stand --- proudly--- with not only a “Standing Army”, but with our militia alive and well, still serving both the several states and the USA in two well-defined classes.
ValentineSmith61 8 months ago
@ValentineSmith61
Cont(9)
From the U S Code:
Title 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13
§ 311. Militia: composition and classes
ValentineSmith61 8 months ago
@ValentineSmith61
Cont(10)
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
ValentineSmith61 8 months ago
@ValentineSmith61
Cont(11)
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
ValentineSmith61 8 months ago
@ValentineSmith61 The first edition of The U.S. Code was not completed and published until 1926. Thus your reference has no relevance to a debate regarding what was meant by the Founding Fathers when they drafted the Constitution more than a century prior. For fuck's sake, do you put any thought into your argument? Do you have even the slightest clue what it is you're arguing about?
Jesus Christ Almighty --- did Wal-Mart have a sale on Stupid Pills or is your defect congenital?
FatFred2U 8 months ago
@ValentineSmith61 While Congress was given the authority to "raise and support armies", it did not have the MEANS to do so. This is something I have already referred to and something you should have researched before concocting another empty argument which ignores HISTORICAL FACT, in a vain attempt to misconstrue what I have said and what I meant when I said it. Perhaps you can explain why Congress did not immediately create The Army which it was authorized raise. Research and facts, please!
FatFred2U 8 months ago
@FatFred2U
Nice try.
It is not a question of “MEANS”, but of the WILL of Congress reflecting the WILL of the people, i.e. opposition to a “standing army”.
ValentineSmith61 8 months ago
@ValentineSmith61 Again, if The Constitution specifies "any local or state-wide purpose of the militia", then please supply the exact quote. Any pre-existing uses (those which predate the War) are not cited in the Constitution and are not recognized by the Constitution as alternate purposes for the militia. You accuse me of incorrectly reading the minds of the Framers, after I supply references and context, but what do you do present but non-specific and unsupported prattle?
FatFred2U 8 months ago
@FatFred2U
The Constitution contains no statement that I know of, concerning any purposes or use of the Militia other than the stipulated uses Congress is permitted.
Nor does it need to do so.
It simply does not prohibit other purposes, and that is enough.
ValentineSmith61 8 months ago
ValentineSmith61 wrote, "The Constitution contains no statement that I know of, concerning any purposes or use of the Militia other than the stipulated uses Congress is permitted."
Exactly the point I was making all along and the very thing you have wasted so much time and energy (and no intelligence) arguing against.
You could be a man and admit you've been wrong since the start, but I suspect you have neither the wits to recognize, nor the courage to admit, YOUR FAILURE!
FatFred2U 8 months ago
@FatFred2U
Out of context – the rest of the statement is: “ Nor does [the Constitution] need to do so. It simply does not prohibit other purposes [or uses of the Militia, by the several states], and that is enough.”
There is no Constitutional prohibition of any use or purpose of the Militia by the several states.
ValentineSmith61 8 months ago
@FatFred2U
The only benefit I gained from my attempt to discuss the matter with you, was finding a website that lists the states and the pertinent state constitutional provision for the Governor to use the militia. There are plenty of non-Federal uses and purposes of the militia listed there
ValentineSmith61 8 months ago
@ValentineSmith61 Well, perhaps, when you've finished memorizing all of the State's Constitutions, hoping to glean some trivial data you can recall during your next foray into internet trolling, you might consider familiarizing yourself with The Constitution of the UNITED States. It is, after all, what originated this debate and what this debate is still concerned with. Even a six year old would have figured that out by now.
FatFred2U 7 months ago
@FatFred2U
More bluster, projection of your own trickery, attempted distraction by insults, straw arguments and attempts to change the direction of debate. Typical troll behavior.
ValentineSmith61 7 months ago 2
@FatFred2U
You pretend not to realize that Georgia and all those other “free and independent states” who were about to ratify the federal Constitution and become the UNITED States of America, already had established state militias, and the U S Constitution guaranteed their continuing control of THEIR Militias by the several states.
ValentineSmith61 7 months ago 2
@FatFred2U
The Constitution specifies that ONLY the states could appoint the officers who commanded THEIR Militia, and granted to Congress PERMISSION to “borrow” those state militias ONLY for the purposes stipulated in the Constitution, while limiting Congressional power to govern ONLY “such Part of [the Militia] as may be employed in the Service of the United States”, and no OTHER PART of the Militia.
Of course a troll like you would never admit it.
ValentineSmith61 7 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@FatFred2U
You posted ----
“Therefore, in the minds of The Framers, the militia was the military. Or more specifically, the militia was a temporary government-controlled military force until the Government acquired the means to create and maintain a permanent GOVERNMENT-CONTROLLED military force (a.k.a. The Army) to replace the militia.” (EMPHASIS in original)
ValentineSmith61 7 months ago 2
@FatFred2U
Not only was the Militia never under the federal 'control' of Congress, even when the “Government acquired the means to create and maintain a permanent GOVERNMENT-CONTROLLED military force (a.k.a. The Army) . . .” , It did NOT “replace the Militia”. The Militia still stands more than 2 centuries later, even though we have a “standing Army”. Not bad endurance for what you CLAIM was supposed to be a “temporary . . . force”.
ValentineSmith61 7 months ago
@ValentineSmith61 The National Guard is not, and has never been, the militia. Leave it to you, to try and divert the debate along another irrelevant tangent. Try again LOSER!
I'll credit your energy: so many FAILURES and yet you still haven't figured-out when to quit.
FatFred2U 7 months ago
@FatFred2U
You posted a purposely stupid statement. Trolls like you offer such idiocy, and expect to disrupt any honest discussion of the issues by precisely the tactics you employ. You have nothing to bring to any discussion. Others can make their evaluations of your statements, and I expect they will conclude as I have:
DO NOT FEED THE TROLL.
ValentineSmith61 7 months ago 9
@ValentineSmith61 Oh gee, what's next for Mr. Shit-For-Brains, who hasn't a clue about what a debate is, will he tell me when and where I can respond? Get-off your friggin' high horse. The bonafide morons like you, are why pro-gun advocacy has the reputation of attracting the lowest-forms of human intelligence.
Do Mr. Darwin a favour and lick an electric fence.
Don't worry, it won't hurt: you need a brain to feel pain.
Or crawl back under your rock and open a big ol' can of STFU!
FatFred2U 7 months ago
@FatFred2U
For example, Georgia's constitution says: “The Governor shall have power, in case of invasion, disaster, insurrection, riot, breach of the peace, combination to oppose the enforcement of the law by force or violence, or imminent danger thereof, or other grave emergency, to order all or any part of the organized
militia into the active service of the state . . .”.
ValentineSmith61 8 months ago
@ValentineSmith61 You're so determined to say something you can't even bother to think if it makes sense, or has any relevancy.
Answer me this Strawman, When was the U.S. Constitution passed into law? When did Georgia join the Union? When was last time you had a CAT scan to verify your two viable brain cells were still functioning?
FatFred2U 7 months ago
@ValentineSmith61 Keep trying to change the direction of the debate. It only reproves what I have said all along. You have nothing of worth to add to the debate and the best you can do to justify prolonging your involvement in it is to meander off on another irrelevant tangent.
FatFred2U 7 months ago
@FatFred2U
Why don't you call your Congressional Rep. and tell him how disturbed you are ----- that these Governors are using THEIR militia for THEIR own purposes, quelling riots, responding to disasters, even drafting people from the unorganized militia into service with the organized militia, when the Constitution doesn't allow it?
ValentineSmith61 8 months ago
@FatFred2U
Your latest is just more of your bluster, obfuscation, distraction with insults, straw arguments, out of context quotes, and projection of all your trickery on the challenger. In other words, you “outted [sic]” yourself as a troll.
ValentineSmith61 8 months ago
@ValentineSmith61 Oh that's good dumbass. Use all the criticism I have already used on you (and proven) and try to claim them as your own. Not that anyone would expect originality from an inbred, mongoloid fucktard who needs to make 200 posts to say absolutely ZIP (except for the 15 posts where you inadvertently agreed with something I said -and leave it to a waste of sperm, like yourself, to not recognize he was repeatedly contradicting himself).
FatFred2U 7 months ago
@FatFred2U
Sadly, you are one of those poor souls who try to compensate for their unsatisfactory lives by trolling. It is harmless enough, and your feigned outrage and ranting is amusing, until it becomes boring. But you should see a professional about your obsession with urine. I admit to some enjoyment in destroying the obviously (and now apparently intentionally) stupid statements you posted, but I won't waste any more time on you.
ValentineSmith61 8 months ago
@ValentineSmith61 I'm obsessed and ranting?
Freekin Jeebies moron, have you looked in the mirror lately?
You need to make twenty posts every time your pea-brain thinks it has something to say, and you call me obsessed? Obviously, the reason YouTube has imposed a character-limit hasn't seeped into that vacuous intellect of your because the only thing concise about it is your single digit IQ.
FatFred2U 7 months ago
@FatFred2U
Again:
Good luck, and I hope your next encounter works out better. 42.
ValentineSmith61 8 months ago
@ValentineSmith61 Me too.
Hopefully it will be with someone who has something worthwhile to add to the debate.
And hopefully their chief accomplishment will not be training their rectum to express themselves.
(Oops, I guess now you'll have to cite me for starting a sentence with "AND").
FatFred2U 7 months ago
@ValentineSmith61 I know this next request will prove burdensome for someone who wants to argue without bothering to provide any evidence to support his views, but if you're going to quote me or assert what my meaning is, then take the time to know what you are saying. To wit: I did not "conclude" that in the minds of The Framers "the militia was the military". I stated that they regarded the militia as a temporary substitute until they acquired the means to raise a permanent standing army.
FatFred2U 8 months ago
@FatFred2U You made both of those statements:
“The purpose of the militia, . . . was to enforce the law, put down insurrections and repel invasions. THEREFORE, ['as a result'] IN THE MINDS OF THE FRAMERS, THE MILITIA WAS THE MILITARY. Or more specifically, the militia was a temporary government-controlled military force . . .” (EMPHASIS ADDED).
Refuted – by your own words.
ValentineSmith61 8 months ago
@ValentineSmith61 Then please supply the exact quote from The Constitution which clearly states for which other purposes the militia was intended. This seems to be a recurring problem with you. You accuse me of being incorrect, yet fail to provide any proof of my mistake.
FatFred2U 8 months ago
@ValentineSmith61 1. My remark, to which you reference, does not have quotation marks, which should indicate to you that it is not a direct (literal) quote. Sorry, if the language conventions are confusing to you. However, I would like for you to explain how my 'wording' alters the meaning or intent of the original. Or how that led you to conclude that my comments "reflect some serious mis-[sic]conceptions".
FatFred2U 8 months ago
@FatFred2U
Thank you for your (non)reply.
It is apparent that you are incapable of offering a rational explanation and defense of your statements, so you resort to the “octopus defense” --- squirt a cloud of ink, accuse anyone who dares challenge you as a troll, demand your challenger defend his challenge, throw in some tangential insults as a further distraction,and hope to escape in the confusion.
It didn't work.
ValentineSmith61 8 months ago
@ValentineSmith61
Cont.1
You said:
“1. My remark, to which you reference[sic], does not have quotation marks, which should indicate to you that it is not a direct (literal) quote.”
That should be “to which you refer”. I can be as captious as you.
ValentineSmith61 8 months ago
@ValentineSmith61
Cont. 2
I never took your remark as a “direct (literal) quote”. I said your remark made reference to one of the “powers of Congress” in Art 1 Sec. 8, and I quoted the original. I did not say you misquoted the Constitution, I said you failed to comprehend it. Then I continued, to show you HOW and WHY I thought you were wrong in your statement.
ValentineSmith61 8 months ago
@ValentineSmith61
Cont. 3
The 'wording' in your paraphrase is secondary. It is your lack of comprehension, as evidenced in your statement, and delineated in my reply to your statement, that is primary.
It is time for you to respond to the issues I raised in that reply, if you can. I have entertained your avoidance of a defense of your statement long enough.
ValentineSmith61 8 months ago
@ValentineSmith61
Cont. 3
Defend your statement, and avoid “ 'outting' [sic]” yourself as “just another internet troll looking for an argument to be involved in, even though he/she has nothing of value to add to the debate.”
ValentineSmith61 8 months ago
@ValentineSmith61 Look idiot, I am the only one, of us two, has defended anything I've said. You continue to avoid that FACT in your failing attempt to prove yourself as anything more than another internet troll looking for an argument to be involved in. I don't need to 'out' you,... you do that every time you spew more of your ignorant nonsense.
FatFred2U 8 months ago
@FatFred2U
You said:
“Look idiot, I am the only one, of us two, has defended anything I've said. “
(Nice syntax, that, idiot.)
ValentineSmith61 8 months ago
@ValentineSmith61 No dumbass, it was an unintentional omission. Only a complete ass, such as yourself, would have missed that, while trying to distract attention away from his own ignorance.
Btw, try looking-up the definitions for "refer" and "reference", and see if the not-so-subtle differences can permeate the granite that protects your pea-brain. Your attempt to be "captious" is ironic since the whole of your argument has relied on self-righteous bombast and intentional misrepresentation.
FatFred2U 8 months ago
@FatFred2U I truly hope you are just a troll out to amuse himself. If that is not the case, please, get some help.
You have had your chance to defend your opinion of the purpose and use of the Militia. Instead, you wasted that opportunity (indicating you knew it was indefensible) and chose to play the game of attacking your challenger with bluster and obfuscation. Pitiful.
Good luck, and I hope your next encounter works out better. 42.
ValentineSmith61 8 months ago
@ValentineSmith61 Dumbass, I defended my statements (repeatedly). Even though you chose the strawman approach from the outset, I gave you some credit for being able to some form of semi-intelligent rebuttal.That was a mistake, because not immediately taking you to task for your boorish tactics encouraged you to constantly change the direction of the debate and pretend that it was I who was engaging in unintelligent and disreputable conduct. You failed, now go crawl back under your rock.
FatFred2U 8 months ago