Uh huh, except the Constitution provided for a standing army.
You really don't know anything except the liberal talking points. That's embarrassing for you. Geez dude, understanding history isn't rocket science.
Is the 2nd Amendment just for muskets?
- Thread starter MegaPoke
- Start date
Uh huh, except the Constitution provided for a standing army.
You really don't know anything except the liberal talking points. That's embarrassing for you. Geez dude, understanding history isn't rocket science.
Obviously it wasn't the sold purpose of stricly limiting federal government powers. The amendment specifically states its objective was preserving the security of the state, lol. I'm sorry to take you off that narrative, but the plain language of the provision contradicts you. I don't believe it gave the federal government any power per se -- it created a right of individuals to own muskets to mount a national defense.
Annnnnnd, history kicks you in the nuts yet again. The objective of the 2nd was to forbid the federal government from infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear guns and shit.
ok I am adding another word to your name you obtuse lazy lying liberal @syskatine. What is it like being the smartest fish in the fish stick?
If that was the intention, the historical record would support it. But it doesn't. In fact, there was zero debate about the individual right to keep private arms and the significance of that right to provide protection against tyranny. The only debate was whether the Bill of Rights was needed.
So what were all those quotes from that you looked up, then, if not from debates?
Nope. Gun regulation is a necessity. The real debate is how much regulation is needed and how effective regulation really is. The Bill of Rights is perfectly clear on my right of private ownership.
No, dumbass, only hostile, oppressive states. Thank you for clearing that up. Again, another searing point.
Geezus. Have you ever had a history class? The quotes are from debates about the need to spell out the right as an amendment versus assuming the right was already protected by the Constitution's limitations of power.
You do realize that there were debates about the other amendments in the Bill of Rights, right? If it helps, here is a very basic summary...
"One of the many points of contention between Federalists and Anti-Federalists was the Constitution’s lack of a bill of rights that would place specific limits on government power. Federalists argued that the Constitution did not need a bill of rights, because the people and the states kept any powers not given to the federal government. Anti-Federalists held that a bill of rights was necessary to safeguard individual liberty.
Madison, then a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, went through the Constitution itself, making changes where he thought most appropriate. But several Representatives, led by Roger Sherman, objected that Congress had no authority to change the wording of the Constitution itself. Therefore, Madison’s changes were presented as a list of amendments that would follow Article VII.
The House approved 17 amendments. Of these 17, the Senate approved 12. Those 12 were sent to the states for approval in August of 1789. Of those 12, 10 were quickly approved (or, ratified). Virginia’s legislature became the last to ratify the amendments on December 15, 1791."
Well, it says those rights can't be infringed. But then you turned around and explained that gun regulation is a necessity. I'm not smart enough to reconcile that, so I need someone like you that has it all figured out.
This dumbass just led you into your biggest curb stomping of your posting career. So tell me more right meow.
Lol
Just painful sys....simply painful to read any further. I might have to go get counseling to try and understand why someone continues to let themselves be so utterly embarrassed! Beaten like a rented army mule, comes to mind.
Not to pile on, but have you considered that you're applying modern grammatical construction and meaning to word and phrases that were written from a different era?
"Well regulated" could mean "in good condition" or "operating properly" as reflected by a post earlier as opposed to "federal authority to control". "Free State" could just as easily be referring to "state of being" as "The State of Virginia or whatever (ex. if they had meant the individual states....of which there were already 13...why the use of the singular term).
I would propose that words themselves are far from clear and subject to a single solitary statutory interpretation. I see them as pretty dang ambiguous. Particularly when you have the mention of "well regulated" in the prefatory clause and "right of the people shall not be abridged" in the executory clause. If the language is ambiguous, it is perfectly appropriate to look to the historical record to determine intent.
No ad hominem. No attack. Just a question and a proposition. I'm not really interested in inserting myself in the endless 2nd A pissing match.
Proceed.
I guess you need me to switch from crayon to finger painting...
Is requiring a background check infringement? If I'm legally allowed to own a gun, I can buy one, ten, or even 30 like you have. Not infringement. If I'm not legally allowed to own one, I can't buy one legally. Again, not infringement.
Now, there are plenty of questions regarding the constitutionality of the ban of post 1986 manufactured machinegun sales to civilians (FOPA), the process to buy a suppressor or short barrel rifle, and regulations regarding ammunition.
I, being a very reasonable supporter of the 2nd, don't believe that civilians need full auto weapons, so that isn't a rub. Firing full auto weapons is like banging the hottest gal on the planet, short lived and very expensive.
The tax stamp and registration requirements for suppressors and SBRs/SBSs are very dumb, but I have no problem affording the $200 tax stamp, so it isn't something I really grind my teeth about. SBRs and SBSs don't have a great amount of utility to me except for sitting pretty at the ready for home defense. Supressors limit hearing damage. They should be sold over the counter like Robitussin, 18 to buy.
Last edited:
1. I'm not sure that the framers intended to draft a sentence that required a JD or scholar to interpret.
2. They sure could have been more articulate and explicit if they intended to have some individual right that was unrelated to state security. Pretty confusing if that militia was being protected for a state security that was something other than... well, state security.
3. Re: free state. Oh, it could be 145 different things. We can all dream up alternative meanings and spin to get the result we want. That doesn't make it ambiguous. I'm relatively confident the "free State" was the federal government. They weren't that spongy and nebulous about other stuff and the mention of militia wasn't in regard to home defense.
4. So? Given the slavery issues, their fidelity to "freedom" was what it was. Why can't some people bring themselves to second guess slave holders' opinions about liberty?
5. Your point about overlaying 21st century rules and vocabulary is well taken. It's an anachronism. Enlightened people aren't devoted to anachronism. SCOTUS held in 1875 that the right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution. That's what legal minds thought before contemporary society, much closer in time to the enactment than we are now. If a thoughtful analysis when the words and usage were more familiar is significant, there ya go...
6. So? The "shall not be abridged" is out the window. If you don't believe me, fill out the federal paperwork wrong when you buy a gun.
LOL, right. So if the government decides you can't legally own a gun, that's not infringement? Thank you!! I agree! Welcome to the side of truth and light.
Brilliant. Yep, and the government can't take away your right to vote...lol.
Being intentionally stupid is far worse than being born stupid. You're managing to make CCup look like a MENSA member.
I do hope you gave your clients better representation.
Please - tell me more of your legal conclusions. I'm all ears! You've obviously really thought this one out!
So, there isn't a certain group of folks that cannot legally possess a firearm? Hmmmm. Aren't you an attorney?
1. I never suggested anything of the sort, thanks. I suggested you're giving modern meaning and grammatical analysis to words that had different meaning and different grammar back then. Besides you're the one that cited a rule of statutory construction (if the words are clear, no reason to explore legislative history) to which I was responding.
2. The Constitution and the BOR was a document of compromise and negotiation. Products of compromise and negotiation often have designed ambiguity inherent to get passage.
3. You're relatively certain as to what they meant...despite historical passages cited to in this thread indicating that their intent was exceedingly different than your interpretation. Got it.
4. So advocate throwing out the Constitution and doing what you want rather than arguing what the Constitution actually is.
5. Cruickshank held the right to possess firearms existed INDEPENDENT of the US Constitution and that the 2nd Amendment was a bar to infringing on that right. Which goes directly contrary to your position that the 2nd Amendment authorizes federal "regulation" of the "militia". So there YOU go. Also, nice ad hominem on anyone that disagrees with you. So I guess I will get mine in too, you prick.
6. I don't really understand your, I'm sure, incredibly cogent point you're trying to make here. Is it that the Feds are already violating the 2nd Amendment so what's a little more?
Please pardon me for attempting to engage you in a non-attacking, non-insulting discussion. It's clear you're more interested in the pissing match and insults. Maybe it's because everyone else seems to engage you on that level alone that you react the same way to everyone. Mea Culpa. It won't happen again.
Proceed.
Bingo! This giant bowl of Wheaties only needs one pisser and Medic is using his "A stream".
Dang. The lawyer just got attorneyed. There isn't a reason to engage syskatine above the level he is willing to engage. He loves to sling his "you just want losers to be able to kill lots of folks" shit and then act like others here are unwilling to engage in thoughtful debate. There's no sense reading Shakespeare to the toddler in the room.
I actually gave him an honest assessment of my thoughts on gun legislation. He followed up with the usual weak assed attempt to create a gotcha moment with some dumb ass circular bullshit. He failed like he always does.
I'm willing to have all kinds of conversation about the 2nd. I just expect that the person I'm conversing with starts at a point of intellectual honesty. If liberals would actually do this, there could probably some productive dialogue. Starting with "I'm not trying to take your guns, but the 2nd doesn't give you the individual right of uninfringed ownership because militia with reams of regulation and protect the federal government " isn't an honest starting point.
I actually gave him an honest assessment of my thoughts on gun legislation. He followed up with the usual weak assed attempt to create a gotcha moment with some dumb ass circular bullshit. He failed like he always does.
I'm willing to have all kinds of conversation about the 2nd. I just expect that the person I'm conversing with starts at a point of intellectual honesty. If liberals would actually do this, there could probably some productive dialogue. Starting with "I'm not trying to take your guns, but the 2nd doesn't give you the individual right of uninfringed ownership because militia with reams of regulation and protect the federal government " isn't an honest starting point.
I'm an original intent kinda guy for the most part. All such people are not "enlightened" and are devoted to an anachronism according to you.
Not the most extreme of insults, to be sure....but certainly meets the definition of ad hominem (addressing the nature and/or character of the proposer rather than the proposition).
It's all good though. Doesn't bother me.
Proceed.
Last edited:
Right - it obviously doesn't bother you. So you got that mad over me calling something from the 1700's an anachronism? Nah. It's also not even close to an ad hominem deal - it's a pretty obvious criticism of the SA and subject of the OP.
Just wondering why you took ad hominem shots at me out of the blue. (As is usual the case on these boards.) Are you the lawyer that works for a state law enforcement agency?
Wait.... I get it....
What makes you think that the (late) 1700's were a long time ago?
In terms of human history, it was yesterday. What makes original intent so irrelevant today?
Bottom line, you are a statist - a label you've never disavowed.
"Lol" Is basically a neon sign pointing at your camel toe.
No....you really don't.
You respond to name calling in kind all the time while proclaiming it doesn't bother you. I did the same in response to your calling out people who disagree with you as unenlighted, which is what you actually did, and which is obviously ad hominem.
I wasn't mad at all. You're not a mind reader.
This is all so obvious, but I'm gonna engage in an irrelevant tangential argument and assist you in deflecting and detouring away from the main discussion.
Last edited:
I've asked the question already. You've yet to answer it. I'll ask it again. Are there certain groups of people that can't legally own or possess firearms?
Your claim of being a lawyer has become about as believable as your claim of owning 30 guns. It's clear that JD is a lawyer (you managed to contradict your previous distinction of lawyer vs attorney). Your skill is pegging somewhere between secondary school English teacher and disgruntled retail store manager.
@syskatine, you got obliterated. Even me, the lowly medic, knows the majority opinion of US vs Cruikshank. You citing US vs Cruikshank as a ruling against private gun ownership is just straight up dumbass. I guess you've only read as far as "The right there specified is that of bearing arms for a lawful purpose. This is not a right granted by the Constitution."
You obviously either failed to read the rest or are unable to comprehend it. Do you ever get tired of being completely wrong?
I've often thought the same thing. We have had three regular posters in this forum who have claimed being a lawyer as their occupation, Sys, JD and Hollywood. Two of them make well laid out and professional, arguments. The other one doesn't.
Sing it with me now, "... one of these things is not like the others..."
