|
|
Post by code on Dec 7, 2021 6:00:17 GMT
1) A well regulated...
2) being necessary to (the) security
3) the right of people (which ones? White, Black, Red, Yellow, Free, Slave, men, women? )
So, let's first discuss the meaning of well regulated and then get into the others later. I would like to finish with a discussion of this Federal law vs State rights.
There is nothing to discuss as the Federal Government does not have the authority to do anything that is not specifically stated in the Constitution ... and various arguable interpretations in the Supreme Court. If Missouri wishes to raise a Militia for State purposes and pay for it, then we will do so. The meaning of "well-regulated" is for Missouri to say, not for Washington (either one of them  ). Somehow, Blue States always seem to think that they are the only ones that can interpret Rights. I've read Florida is thinking about doing that, something completely separate from the Federal gov. |
|
|
|
Post by code on Dec 7, 2021 6:01:27 GMT
Agree. When I was a kid there were no school shooting I can remember.
Today trash is on the streets.
While terrible when they do occur, school shooting death numbers are miniscule given the size of the USA. In all of 2020, there were 5 school shooting deaths in this entire country. Meanwhile, Chicago might have over 25 shooting deaths over any given weekend. Are black lives less valuable to gun grabbing liberals? Why are American black people so incredibly violent? Virtually all US gun violence happens in the large blue cities.
Why are American black people so incredibly violent? Are they? This might be enough for a separate thread. |
|
|
|
Post by code on Dec 7, 2021 6:02:52 GMT
I had high hopes for this thread as you all seem like reasonable gentlemen. Quickly turning to crickets. Well, seems like there was a majority opinion. Code was your debate partner. Still here, sorry but have been busy. |
|
|
|
Post by code on Dec 7, 2021 6:17:26 GMT
A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
Ok, back to square one. A well regulated militia, being necessary for the SECURITY of a free state, shall not be infringed so people (who make up the militia) can possess weapons for the purpose of protecting the free state.
That is what it says period.
There is nothing in those words that says you have a right to own a weapon for your personal use and up until 2008 when the court, by a one vote margin - District of Columbia V Heller - voted that a civilian was protected by the 2nd to keep a handgun for self-defense. What did we do all those years before? Perhaps C v H was wrong? I will point out the courts have held certain weapons are not legal... A Sawed off shot gun for example is not legal ... United States v Miller in 1939. I believe certain military grade weapons like 50 cal sniper rifles and AR 15's should not be sold to the public just like a sawed off shotgun should not.
|
|
|
|
Post by pbfoot on Dec 7, 2021 11:51:03 GMT
A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
Ok, back to square one. A well regulated militia, being necessary for the SECURITY of a free state, shall not be infringed so people (who make up the militia) can possess weapons for the purpose of protecting the free state.
That is what it says period.
There is nothing in those words that says you have a right to own a weapon for your personal use and up until 2008 when the court, by a one vote margin - District of Columbia V Heller - voted that a civilian was protected by the 2nd to keep a handgun for self-defense. What did we do all those years before? Perhaps C v H was wrong? I will point out the courts have held certain weapons are not legal... A Sawed off shot gun for example is not legal ... United States v Miller in 1939. I believe certain military grade weapons like 50 cal sniper rifles and AR 15's should not be sold to the public just like a sawed off shotgun should not. You are incorrect. I posted links to the federalist papers and I noticed how you removed the comma after the militia. It is a semantics issue after all. How does one defend from the tyranny of the state if you have no arms? Australia is finding out first hand. |
|
|
|
Post by pbfoot on Dec 7, 2021 11:54:12 GMT
January 6th, although a partial glow op, showed the world how much those cowards in DC fear the population. My heart swelled seeing those scumbags, who have destroyed what was once a shining example of individual liberty, cower under their desks.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sigurdur on Dec 7, 2021 12:10:56 GMT
A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
Ok, back to square one. A well regulated militia, being necessary for the SECURITY of a free state, shall not be infringed so people (who make up the militia) can possess weapons for the purpose of protecting the free state.
That is what it says period.
There is nothing in those words that says you have a right to own a weapon for your personal use and up until 2008 when the court, by a one vote margin - District of Columbia V Heller - voted that a civilian was protected by the 2nd to keep a handgun for self-defense. What did we do all those years before? Perhaps C v H was wrong? I will point out the courts have held certain weapons are not legal... A Sawed off shot gun for example is not legal ... United States v Miller in 1939. I believe certain military grade weapons like 50 cal sniper rifles and AR 15's should not be sold to the public just like a sawed off shotgun should not. Whiskey Rebellion. Everyone should read about it. |
|
|
|
Post by pbfoot on Dec 7, 2021 13:13:22 GMT
A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
Ok, back to square one. A well regulated militia, being necessary for the SECURITY of a free state, shall not be infringed so people (who make up the militia) can possess weapons for the purpose of protecting the free state.
That is what it says period.
There is nothing in those words that says you have a right to own a weapon for your personal use and up until 2008 when the court, by a one vote margin - District of Columbia V Heller - voted that a civilian was protected by the 2nd to keep a handgun for self-defense. What did we do all those years before? Perhaps C v H was wrong? I will point out the courts have held certain weapons are not legal... A Sawed off shot gun for example is not legal ... United States v Miller in 1939. I believe certain military grade weapons like 50 cal sniper rifles and AR 15's should not be sold to the public just like a sawed off shotgun should not. Once again, a government created crime wave, prohibition, resulted in yet another senseless gun law that deprives others of liberty. The whole idea of the 2nd amendment was to ensure liberty. How does one overthrow the tyrannical state that is armed to the teeth without equal firepower? That is where "shall not be infringed" comes in. Have you ever tried to find how many legally owned guns were actually used in a crime by their legal owner? Do you really think that felons will obey the law? The small hats are unleashing their pets on society, with the help of Soros backed district attorneys, to demoralize the population, so they will willingly give up their God given right to self defense. |
|
|
|
Post by Sigurdur on Dec 7, 2021 14:52:08 GMT
A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
Ok, back to square one. A well regulated militia, being necessary for the SECURITY of a free state, shall not be infringed so people (who make up the militia) can possess weapons for the purpose of protecting the free state.
That is what it says period.
There is nothing in those words that says you have a right to own a weapon for your personal use and up until 2008 when the court, by a one vote margin - District of Columbia V Heller - voted that a civilian was protected by the 2nd to keep a handgun for self-defense. What did we do all those years before? Perhaps C v H was wrong? I will point out the courts have held certain weapons are not legal... A Sawed off shot gun for example is not legal ... United States v Miller in 1939. I believe certain military grade weapons like 50 cal sniper rifles and AR 15's should not be sold to the public just like a sawed off shotgun should not. Once again, a government created crime wave, prohibition, resulted in yet another senseless gun law that deprives others of liberty. The whole idea of the 2nd amendment was to ensure liberty. How does one overthrow the tyrannical state that is armed to the teeth without equal firepower? That is where "shall not be infringed" comes in. Have you ever tried to find how many legally owned guns were actually used in a crime by their legal owner? Do you really think that felons will obey the law? The small hats are unleashing their pets on society, with the help of Soros backed district attorneys, to demoralize the population, so they will willingly give up their God given right to self defense. There are several cities with high murder rates. Rural areas, at this time, appear to not share that idea that killing people is in vogue. I use my firearms moreso in the summer than winter. Varmint shooting happens. Am I willing to forfeit my right to bear arms because of a few nutjobs? Nope. |
|
|
|
Post by code on Dec 7, 2021 15:05:55 GMT
A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
Ok, back to square one. A well regulated militia, being necessary for the SECURITY of a free state, shall not be infringed so people (who make up the militia) can possess weapons for the purpose of protecting the free state.
That is what it says period.
There is nothing in those words that says you have a right to own a weapon for your personal use and up until 2008 when the court, by a one vote margin - District of Columbia V Heller - voted that a civilian was protected by the 2nd to keep a handgun for self-defense. What did we do all those years before? Perhaps C v H was wrong? I will point out the courts have held certain weapons are not legal... A Sawed off shot gun for example is not legal ... United States v Miller in 1939. I believe certain military grade weapons like 50 cal sniper rifles and AR 15's should not be sold to the public just like a sawed off shotgun should not. You are incorrect. I posted links to the federalist papers and I noticed how you removed the comma after the militia. It is a semantics issue after all. How does one defend from the tyranny of the state if you have no arms? Australia is finding out first hand. The Federalist papers are not the Actual Amendment PB. |
|
|
|
Post by code on Dec 7, 2021 15:11:46 GMT
January 6th, although a partial glow op, showed the world how much those cowards in DC fear the population. My heart swelled seeing those scumbags, who have destroyed what was once a shining example of individual liberty, cower under their desks. I was disgusted watching those that broke into the Capital. There are those in DC who didn't fear the law breakers as they rioted and broke with both decorum and law.
That you found it appealing for old people and average citizens to take cover under a desk is disconcerting. |
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Dec 7, 2021 15:33:44 GMT
A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
Ok, back to square one. A well regulated militia, being necessary for the SECURITY of a free state, shall not be infringed so people (who make up the militia) can possess weapons for the purpose of protecting the free state.
That is what it says period.
There is nothing in those words that says you have a right to own a weapon for your personal use and up until 2008 when the court, by a one vote margin - District of Columbia V Heller - voted that a civilian was protected by the 2nd to keep a handgun for self-defense. What did we do all those years before? Perhaps C v H was wrong? I will point out the courts have held certain weapons are not legal... A Sawed off shot gun for example is not legal ... United States v Miller in 1939. I believe certain military grade weapons like 50 cal sniper rifles and AR 15's should not be sold to the public just like a sawed off shotgun should not. You are attempting to beat a dead horse with convoluted logic. A free state IS the people. THUS ... A well regulated militia, being necessary for the SECURITY of a free people, shall not be infringed so people (who make up the militia) can possess weapons for the purpose of protecting the free state themselves. Can I get an AMEN? What is more common in history, is a State composed of a small fraction of the people who wish to suppress the ownership of weapons to protect themselves from the larger fraction of the people. Can I get a 2nd AMEN? |
|
|
|
Post by code on Dec 7, 2021 15:34:46 GMT
A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
Ok, back to square one. A well regulated militia, being necessary for the SECURITY of a free state, shall not be infringed so people (who make up the militia) can possess weapons for the purpose of protecting the free state.
That is what it says period.
There is nothing in those words that says you have a right to own a weapon for your personal use and up until 2008 when the court, by a one vote margin - District of Columbia V Heller - voted that a civilian was protected by the 2nd to keep a handgun for self-defense. What did we do all those years before? Perhaps C v H was wrong? I will point out the courts have held certain weapons are not legal... A Sawed off shot gun for example is not legal ... United States v Miller in 1939. I believe certain military grade weapons like 50 cal sniper rifles and AR 15's should not be sold to the public just like a sawed off shotgun should not. You are incorrect. I posted links to the federalist papers and I noticed how you removed the comma after the militia. It is a semantics issue after all. How does one defend from the tyranny of the state if you have no arms? Australia is finding out first hand. Ok. Do you agree this is a complete, full, and accurate text of the Amendment?
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.
|
|
|
|
Post by code on Dec 7, 2021 15:41:24 GMT
A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
Ok, back to square one. A well regulated militia, being necessary for the SECURITY of a free state, shall not be infringed so people (who make up the militia) can possess weapons for the purpose of protecting the free state.
That is what it says period.
There is nothing in those words that says you have a right to own a weapon for your personal use and up until 2008 when the court, by a one vote margin - District of Columbia V Heller - voted that a civilian was protected by the 2nd to keep a handgun for self-defense. What did we do all those years before? Perhaps C v H was wrong? I will point out the courts have held certain weapons are not legal... A Sawed off shot gun for example is not legal ... United States v Miller in 1939. I believe certain military grade weapons like 50 cal sniper rifles and AR 15's should not be sold to the public just like a sawed off shotgun should not. You are attempting to beat a dead horse with convoluted logic. A free state IS the people. THUS ... A well regulated militia, being necessary for the SECURITY of a free people, shall not be infringed so people (who make up the militia) can possess weapons for the purpose of protecting the free state themselves. Can I get an AMEN? What is more common in history, is a State composed of a small fraction of the people who wish to suppress the ownership of weapons to protect themselves from the larger fraction of the people. Can I get a 2nd AMEN? Missouri, I agree with you a state is people, made up of and comprised of people, and free state is filled with free people. |
|
|
|
Post by pbfoot on Dec 7, 2021 15:52:12 GMT
You are incorrect. I posted links to the federalist papers and I noticed how you removed the comma after the militia. It is a semantics issue after all. How does one defend from the tyranny of the state if you have no arms? Australia is finding out first hand. Ok. Do you agree this is a complete, full, and accurate text of the Amendment?
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.
Yes. |
|
). Somehow, Blue States always seem to think that they are the only ones that can interpret Rights.
