Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Ok. So I'm approaching this with a fair mind to just see where it goes. The very first argument is about one minute in:
"But firstly to accept this premise you would have to believe that the founding fathers were so stupid they had never, ever, ever witnessed or anticipated any kind of technological advancement in weaponry whatsoever."
There you go. No, I don't have to accept that premise, and he doesn't explain it -- he goes on to put on a wig, and then condescendingly explain rocks gave way to sticks, etc. I'm sure that percussion caps, musket balls, gunpowder, rifling, all types of stuff were continuously worked on. I think 1792 was still decades before rapid fire guns were used. I don't have to accept that the founding fathers had "never, ever ever witnessed or anticipated technological advancement in weaponry whatsoever" to conclude that technology outpaced the strict constructionist interpretation of the SA. His very first statement is illogical and he paints his opponent with the most extreme possible "conclusion" they must believe right out of the gate.
Why is an intellectually honest conversation about it so hard?
Making sure the federal government couldn't disarm the people.What were they concerned with then?
TV, radio, the Internet, etc weren't something even remotely imaginable in 1791. Did the founders intend to limit freedom of the press to the printing presses that existed in their time? If they meant to limit arms to muskets, they certainly meant to restrict freedom of the press to printing presses and quill pens.so if the 2nd only applies to muskets, where does that put obysmal care? Know there wasn't universal health care back in them ther woods.
When a mob of people are rioting, burning buildings and cars, and targeting whites to beat and rob; I'm damn sure going to be armed with some high capacity firepower in order to protect myself. Am I the only one who remembers Reginald Denny? I'll be damned if I let that happen to me without having the ability to defend myself against superior numbers.
You attempt to pull me out of my car and you'll either be run over or shot.
so if the 2nd only applies to muskets, where does that put obysmal care? Know there wasn't universal health care back in them ther woods.
They didn't want the federal government to disarm the states
They didn't want the federal government to disarm the states. The people are the sovereign, they created the states, the states then created the federal government and gave to it certain powers while retaining all others. This isn't complex.
Several thought the bill of rights where redundant and useless because the powers delegated where few and limited in scope. Where would we be today had the "anti-federalists" not insisted upon a BOR?
Let me tell YOU something. Read this very closely:
If I'm ever drinking coffee and eating some pancakes and you try to mug me, I swear to God I'll shoot you right in the face. You got that, pussy? Pancakes. Face.
And what do you think the function and meaning of the first clause is?
Sure. Deal. If I ever try to mug you, please defend yourself. I'd hope you'd do that regardless if it were me. But whatever. Feel superior and condescending. No worries. But if BLM ever blocks the street I'm on and I think they are intent on beating me; it won't end well.
Truth is, I probably wouldn't shoot someone in the face. I haven't even fantasized about it. So what's your contingency plan if BLM thugs triy to carjack you and you have a back seat full of white babies?
Because there was no standing federal army but a consortium of state organized militia. Go read Federalist 26.
I'm prepared to defend myself. And the 2nd amendment protects my right to do that with a firearm.
And what do you think the function and meaning of the first clause is?
No shit? Sounds like you can't wait. You've sure given it lots of thought.
They weren't concerned with "muskets" or limiting the future firepower of free citizens.
What were they concerned with then?
Hell, I'd hate to ever be in that situation. It wouldn't be fun and it damn sure would haunt me if I ever had to do that. But being prepared for that situation doesn't mean you'd like it. It just means that you're a man and prepared to defend yourself and family.
I feel sorry for you.
My point: they weren't talking about muskets specifically. And they there's nothing to indicate that they out any value in limiting the kinds of personal arms people could own. I think you understood my point.
Yeah, I get your point, but may I make another? The first clause of the SA suggests a policy reason - the security of the state. I don't think you can be intellectually honest and say that the contemporary reason for the SA has to do with state security. You and every single SA supporter on here discuss it as a concept of personal rights. It %#*! says it's to protect the state. I'm not making this shit up, Mega -- look at it The words are there, it's not an illusion.
Damn, I like what you're saying, but I have no clue WhoTF you're talking to!
It suggests one if you reereeallly want it to - to the point that you are totally willing to ignore all context in which it was written. Sure.
It's a question he won't answer.All the rights in the Bill of Rights are individual rights. Why is the 2nd amendment the only one that would be a collective right? If I don't have that right individually, how can I have it collectively?
Militia=the whole of the people MINUS the federal government. I know, I know, the actual historical record is meaningless to you. Intellectual honesty and all.What is so hard to understand about, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...?" How many different ways can you interpret that some degree of intellectual honesty?
All the rights in the Bill of Rights are individual rights. Why is the 2nd amendment the only one that would be a collective right? If I don't have that right individually, how can I have it collectively?
Militia=the whole of the people MINUS the federal government. .
Why don't you explain what "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" means? And how is that meaning relevant today? Be sure to include the phrase "security of a free state" in your answer.
And what's so hard to understand about creating a right to protect the state? If the articulated function of the right has disappeared then there's no reason to protect the right. If you want guns, fine. If you have reasons, fine. But don't say it's the SA. Conservatives routinely molest the SA and do all kinds of mental gymnastics instead of addressing the very words of the second amendment, and then accuse their opponents of being the activist!!! Anachronisms may be recognized - truthfully acknowledging that times have changed and certain policy considerations are now mooted is common sense. I wish someone was intellectually honest enough to say, "The SA is obviously an anachronism, but we still need guns because...."
All the rights in the Bill of Rights are individual rights. Why is the 2nd amendment the only one that would be a collective right? If I don't have that right individually, how can I have it collectively?
Translation: I can't answer your question.
I don't understand what you're saying. If you had a collective right like national self defense, but not the personal right to have my own fully armed Apache helicopter, what what happens? Would the earth melt? Would God be displeased? You tell me, I can't see that it's a problem.
Define 'national self defense'? That's not a right.
Define 'national self defense'? That's not a right.