Obama Care is working
#61
(11-18-2014, 01:56 PM)SFLiberal Wrote:
(11-18-2014, 01:31 PM)bbqboy Wrote: Why do you want Americans to die?
Are you that heartless?
Do you consider health care to be a right or a privilege under your precious constitution?

There is nothing in the Constitution that gives a person the right to vote, have an abortion, or have health insurance. As far as health care the voters of each state should decide that issue. not the federal government. There is a right to bear arms. That right SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

Yes, and white folks could own black folks.
Women couldn't vote.

We evolve. We "become our better selves". We "progress". We don't "conserve" values that we understand to be wrong.

And about that 2nd amendment thing: Every constitutional scholar worth his salt agree's is was hastily written and the language poorly constructed. 200 years later and it's still being argued.

Kind of like the thing that slipped by the authors of the ACA that confuses the "state issue".

We WILL have some kind of national health service. Because we have evolved, we have progressed, we no longer hold to outdated ideals of the past, and it is simply the right thing to do.

You can take that to the bank.
Reply
#62
(11-18-2014, 04:41 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(11-18-2014, 01:56 PM)SFLiberal Wrote:
(11-18-2014, 01:31 PM)bbqboy Wrote: Why do you want Americans to die?
Are you that heartless?
Do you consider health care to be a right or a privilege under your precious constitution?

There is nothing in the Constitution that gives a person the right to vote, have an abortion, or have health insurance. As far as health care the voters of each state should decide that issue. not the federal government. There is a right to bear arms. That right SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

Yes, and white folks could own black folks.
Women couldn't vote.

We evolve. We "become our better selves". We "progress". We don't "conserve" values that we understand to be wrong.

And about that 2nd amendment thing: Every constitutional scholar worth his salt agree's is was hastily written and the language poorly constructed. 200 years later and it's still being argued.

Kind of like the thing that slipped by the authors of the ACA that confuses the "state issue".

We WILL have some kind of national health service. Because we have evolved, we have progressed, we no longer hold to outdated ideals of the past, and it is simply the right thing to do.

You can take that to the bank.
You sound like an Obama speech writer.
Reply
#63
(11-18-2014, 04:41 PM)Wonky3 Wrote: And about that 2nd amendment thing: Every constitutional scholar worth his salt agree's is was hastily written and the language poorly constructed. 200 years later and it's still being argued.

Holy horseshit in a handbag. You could not be more wrong.

Please post a link to "every constitutional scholar".
Reply
#64
(11-18-2014, 04:54 PM)tornado Wrote:
(11-18-2014, 04:41 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(11-18-2014, 01:56 PM)SFLiberal Wrote:
(11-18-2014, 01:31 PM)bbqboy Wrote: Why do you want Americans to die?
Are you that heartless?
Do you consider health care to be a right or a privilege under your precious constitution?

There is nothing in the Constitution that gives a person the right to vote, have an abortion, or have health insurance. As far as health care the voters of each state should decide that issue. not the federal government. There is a right to bear arms. That right SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

Yes, and white folks could own black folks.
Women couldn't vote.

We evolve. We "become our better selves". We "progress". We don't "conserve" values that we understand to be wrong.

And about that 2nd amendment thing: Every constitutional scholar worth his salt agree's is was hastily written and the language poorly constructed. 200 years later and it's still being argued.

Kind of like the thing that slipped by the authors of the ACA that confuses the "state issue".

We WILL have some kind of national health service. Because we have evolved, we have progressed, we no longer hold to outdated ideals of the past, and it is simply the right thing to do.

You can take that to the bank.
You sound like an Obama speech writer.

A very good Obama speech writer.Smiling
Reply
#65
(11-18-2014, 05:01 PM)Hugo Wrote:
(11-18-2014, 04:41 PM)Wonky3 Wrote: And about that 2nd amendment thing: Every constitutional scholar worth his salt agree's is was hastily written and the language poorly constructed. 200 years later and it's still being argued.

Holy horseshit in a handbag. You could not be more wrong.

Please post a link to "every constitutional scholar".

I. The Politics Of Interpreting The Second Amendment

To put it mildly, the Second Amendment is not at the forefront of constitutional discussion, at least as registered in what the academy regards as the venues for such discussion — law reviews, 13 casebooks, 14 and other scholarly legal publications. As Professor Larue has recently written, "the second amendment is not taken seriously by most scholars." 15

http://www.constitution.org/mil/embar2nd.htm
Reply
#66
(11-18-2014, 05:21 PM)cletus1 Wrote:
(11-18-2014, 04:54 PM)tornado Wrote:
(11-18-2014, 04:41 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(11-18-2014, 01:56 PM)SFLiberal Wrote:
(11-18-2014, 01:31 PM)bbqboy Wrote: Why do you want Americans to die?
Are you that heartless?
Do you consider health care to be a right or a privilege under your precious constitution?

There is nothing in the Constitution that gives a person the right to vote, have an abortion, or have health insurance. As far as health care the voters of each state should decide that issue. not the federal government. There is a right to bear arms. That right SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

Yes, and white folks could own black folks.
Women couldn't vote.

We evolve. We "become our better selves". We "progress". We don't "conserve" values that we understand to be wrong.

And about that 2nd amendment thing: Every constitutional scholar worth his salt agree's is was hastily written and the language poorly constructed. 200 years later and it's still being argued.

Kind of like the thing that slipped by the authors of the ACA that confuses the "state issue".

We WILL have some kind of national health service. Because we have evolved, we have progressed, we no longer hold to outdated ideals of the past, and it is simply the right thing to do.

You can take that to the bank.
You sound like an Obama speech writer.

A very good Obama speech writer.Smiling

Okay Clete, the damn check's in the mail. But I've told you, no more of this.
Reply
#67
(11-18-2014, 08:33 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(11-18-2014, 05:01 PM)Hugo Wrote:
(11-18-2014, 04:41 PM)Wonky3 Wrote: And about that 2nd amendment thing: Every constitutional scholar worth his salt agree's is was hastily written and the language poorly constructed. 200 years later and it's still being argued.

Holy horseshit in a handbag. You could not be more wrong.

Please post a link to "every constitutional scholar".

I. The Politics Of Interpreting The Second Amendment

To put it mildly, the Second Amendment is not at the forefront of constitutional discussion, at least as registered in what the academy regards as the venues for such discussion — law reviews, 13 casebooks, 14 and other scholarly legal publications. As Professor Larue has recently written, "the second amendment is not taken seriously by most scholars." 15

http://www.constitution.org/mil/embar2nd.htm

Actually, debating the second amendment is not taken seriously, because it is succinct.
Reply
#68
(11-18-2014, 11:08 PM)Hugo Wrote:
(11-18-2014, 08:33 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(11-18-2014, 05:01 PM)Hugo Wrote:
(11-18-2014, 04:41 PM)Wonky3 Wrote: And about that 2nd amendment thing: Every constitutional scholar worth his salt agree's is was hastily written and the language poorly constructed. 200 years later and it's still being argued.

Holy horseshit in a handbag. You could not be more wrong.

Please post a link to "every constitutional scholar".

I. The Politics Of Interpreting The Second Amendment

To put it mildly, the Second Amendment is not at the forefront of constitutional discussion, at least as registered in what the academy regards as the venues for such discussion — law reviews, 13 casebooks, 14 and other scholarly legal publications. As Professor Larue has recently written, "the second amendment is not taken seriously by most scholars." 15

http://www.constitution.org/mil/embar2nd.htm

Actually, debating the second amendment is not taken seriously, because it is succinct.

Laughing Have noting more to add.
Reply
#69
(11-18-2014, 11:08 PM)Hugo Wrote:
(11-18-2014, 08:33 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(11-18-2014, 05:01 PM)Hugo Wrote:
(11-18-2014, 04:41 PM)Wonky3 Wrote: And about that 2nd amendment thing: Every constitutional scholar worth his salt agree's is was hastily written and the language poorly constructed. 200 years later and it's still being argued.

Holy horseshit in a handbag. You could not be more wrong.

Please post a link to "every constitutional scholar".

I. The Politics Of Interpreting The Second Amendment

To put it mildly, the Second Amendment is not at the forefront of constitutional discussion, at least as registered in what the academy regards as the venues for such discussion — law reviews, 13 casebooks, 14 and other scholarly legal publications. As Professor Larue has recently written, "the second amendment is not taken seriously by most scholars." 15

http://www.constitution.org/mil/embar2nd.htm

Actually, debating the second amendment is not taken seriously, because it is succinct.

Yeah like when it talks about militias. What the hell are those things anyway? At least they are "well-regulated."
Reply
#70
(11-19-2014, 06:21 PM)MarkM Wrote:
(11-18-2014, 11:08 PM)Hugo Wrote:
(11-18-2014, 08:33 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(11-18-2014, 05:01 PM)Hugo Wrote:
(11-18-2014, 04:41 PM)Wonky3 Wrote: And about that 2nd amendment thing: Every constitutional scholar worth his salt agree's is was hastily written and the language poorly constructed. 200 years later and it's still being argued.

Holy horseshit in a handbag. You could not be more wrong.

Please post a link to "every constitutional scholar".

I. The Politics Of Interpreting The Second Amendment

To put it mildly, the Second Amendment is not at the forefront of constitutional discussion, at least as registered in what the academy regards as the venues for such discussion — law reviews, 13 casebooks, 14 and other scholarly legal publications. As Professor Larue has recently written, "the second amendment is not taken seriously by most scholars." 15

http://www.constitution.org/mil/embar2nd.htm

Actually, debating the second amendment is not taken seriously, because it is succinct.

Yeah like when it talks about militias. What the hell are those things anyway? At least they are "well-regulated."

Quote:As passed by the Congress and preserved in the National Archives:

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.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State (common knowledge that EVERY COUNTRY ON THE PLANET has a standing military, and this new country would need one as well), the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. (follow the simple logic, because the Government must keep an armed militia..... the PEOPLE need to be allowed to defend themselves FROM it.)

I do not understand the mental gymnastics it takes to try to twist this easy concept up. But carry on... you just don't get the one thing that has kept us as free as we have been for as long as we have been. If you get your way.... we are serfs to the Lords.
Reply
#71
(11-19-2014, 08:25 PM)Hugo Wrote:
(11-19-2014, 06:21 PM)MarkM Wrote:
(11-18-2014, 11:08 PM)Hugo Wrote:
(11-18-2014, 08:33 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(11-18-2014, 05:01 PM)Hugo Wrote: Holy horseshit in a handbag. You could not be more wrong.

Please post a link to "every constitutional scholar".

I. The Politics Of Interpreting The Second Amendment

To put it mildly, the Second Amendment is not at the forefront of constitutional discussion, at least as registered in what the academy regards as the venues for such discussion — law reviews, 13 casebooks, 14 and other scholarly legal publications. As Professor Larue has recently written, "the second amendment is not taken seriously by most scholars." 15

http://www.constitution.org/mil/embar2nd.htm

Actually, debating the second amendment is not taken seriously, because it is succinct.

Yeah like when it talks about militias. What the hell are those things anyway? At least they are "well-regulated."

Quote:As passed by the Congress and preserved in the National Archives:

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.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State (common knowledge that EVERY COUNTRY ON THE PLANET has a standing military, and this new country would need one as well), the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. (follow the simple logic, because the Government must keep an armed militia..... the PEOPLE need to be allowed to defend themselves FROM it.)

I do not understand the mental gymnastics it takes to try to twist this easy concept up. But carry on... you just don't get the one thing that has kept us as free as we have been for as long as we have been. If you get your way.... we are serfs to the Lords.

It's obvious that you don't understand. Let me explain it to you.

First off, the Militia is not a standing army. Standing armies were outlawed in the Constitution. Under Sec 8, the powers of Congress, it says Congress has the power,

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

See there, what the Founders did? You can only have an Army for two years. Then you have to decide if you want to keep it for another two years. That's not a typo. The Founders thought a big, ol Army just standing around was trouble in the making. They didn't want it. Curiously though, the Founders thought a Navy was indispensable. The very next power of Congress is,

To provide and maintain a Navy;

Let's recap, Navies and Militias, good. Armies, suspect. There's no mention at all of an Air Force so I guess all those flyboys are UnConstitutional, but that's another story.

So just what was a Militia for anyway? Well, it was most assuredly not for protecting the People from the Government. Quite the opposite, in fact. The Militia was there to protect the Government from the People. It says so in the same section. The Congress has the power,

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

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;


See that? The Militias "serve the US" and among other things "suppress insurrections." That would be the peeps when they act up all illegal like.

This is exactly what happened during Shays Rebellion. Shay and his friends decided they didn't want to pay no stinkin' taxes to no gummit. They said, "Hell no. Don't tread on me, you Federalists!" President Washington said, "Well we'll see about that." He gather up the local militias and went out to have a conversation with Mr. Shays. Let's just say that the militia did its part (shots were fired; neighbors were killed) and the taxes were paid.

It is beyond ludicrous to suggest that the Founders intended for bands of merry men to take up arms in order to level grievances against the very government they worked so dang hard to establish. Oh sure you can quote TJ about the roots of democracy being watered with blood -- but he was talking about the French Revolution (you idiot). There are no provisions -- none whatsoever -- in any founding document that authorizes citizens to take arms against the government. In fact the opposite is the case. The GOVERNMENT has the legal authority to defend itself from the People. (They CAN get ornery sometimes.)

If what you suggest were true, the Confederates would have had a Constitutional right to fight the Union. They did not. They never claimed to have one. They were rebels. Outlaws.

The thing that has kept us free is the UNITED STATES military and US laws. Not a bunch of armed lunatics trying to bite the very hand that feeds them.

Clear that up for you?
Reply
#72
(11-19-2014, 08:56 PM)MarkM Wrote:
(11-19-2014, 08:25 PM)Hugo Wrote:
(11-19-2014, 06:21 PM)MarkM Wrote:
(11-18-2014, 11:08 PM)Hugo Wrote:
(11-18-2014, 08:33 PM)Wonky3 Wrote: I. The Politics Of Interpreting The Second Amendment

To put it mildly, the Second Amendment is not at the forefront of constitutional discussion, at least as registered in what the academy regards as the venues for such discussion — law reviews, 13 casebooks, 14 and other scholarly legal publications. As Professor Larue has recently written, "the second amendment is not taken seriously by most scholars." 15

http://www.constitution.org/mil/embar2nd.htm

Actually, debating the second amendment is not taken seriously, because it is succinct.

Yeah like when it talks about militias. What the hell are those things anyway? At least they are "well-regulated."

Quote:As passed by the Congress and preserved in the National Archives:

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.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State (common knowledge that EVERY COUNTRY ON THE PLANET has a standing military, and this new country would need one as well), the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. (follow the simple logic, because the Government must keep an armed militia..... the PEOPLE need to be allowed to defend themselves FROM it.)

I do not understand the mental gymnastics it takes to try to twist this easy concept up. But carry on... you just don't get the one thing that has kept us as free as we have been for as long as we have been. If you get your way.... we are serfs to the Lords.

It's obvious that you don't understand. Let me explain it to you.

First off, the Militia is not a standing army. Standing armies were outlawed in the Constitution. Under Sec 8, the powers of Congress, it says Congress has the power,

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

See there, what the Founders did? You can only have an Army for two years. Then you have to decide if you want to keep it for another two years. That's not a typo. The Founders thought a big, ol Army just standing around was trouble in the making. They didn't want it. Curiously though, the Founders thought a Navy was indispensable. The very next power of Congress is,

To provide and maintain a Navy;

Let's recap, Navies and Militias, good. Armies, suspect. There's no mention at all of an Air Force so I guess all those flyboys are UnConstitutional, but that's another story.

So just what was a Militia for anyway? Well, it was most assuredly not for protecting the People from the Government. Quite the opposite, in fact. The Militia was there to protect the Government from the People. It says so in the same section. The Congress has the power,

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

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;


See that? The Militias "serve the US" and among other things "suppress insurrections." That would be the peeps when they act up all illegal like.

This is exactly what happened during Shays Rebellion. Shay and his friends decided they didn't want to pay no stinkin' taxes to no gummit. They said, "Hell no. Don't tread on me, you Federalists!" President Washington said, "Well we'll see about that." He gather up the local militias and went out to have a conversation with Mr. Shays. Let's just say that the militia did its part (shots were fired; neighbors were killed) and the taxes were paid.

It is beyond ludicrous to suggest that the Founders intended for bands of merry men to take up arms in order to level grievances against the very government they worked so dang hard to establish. Oh sure you can quote TJ about the roots of democracy being watered with blood -- but he was talking about the French Revolution (you idiot). There are no provisions -- none whatsoever -- in any founding document that authorizes citizens to take arms against the government. In fact the opposite is the case. The GOVERNMENT has the legal authority to defend itself from the People. (They CAN get ornery sometimes.)

If what you suggest were true, the Confederates would have had a Constitutional right to fight the Union. They did not. They never claimed to have one. They were rebels. Outlaws.

The thing that has kept us free is the UNITED STATES military and US laws. Not a bunch of armed lunatics trying to bite the very hand that feeds them.

Clear that up for you?

Dear God, you have been fed and regurgitate a load of crap sometimes. I feel sorry for you.
Reply
#73
(11-19-2014, 08:25 PM)Hugo Wrote: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State (common knowledge that EVERY COUNTRY ON THE PLANET has a standing military, and this new country would need one as well), the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. (follow the simple logic, because the Government must keep an armed militia..... the PEOPLE need to be allowed to defend themselves FROM it.)

I do not understand the mental gymnastics it takes to try to twist this easy concept up. But carry on... you just don't get the one thing that has kept us as free as we have been for as long as we have been. If you get your way.... we are serfs to the Lords.

I'm 100% pro gun ownership for law abiding, sane individuals to do as they lawfully please with them. This includes hobby target shooting, hunting, open or conceal carry for personal protection at home or in public etc, but if you think your guns are going to make a bit of difference if the government decides YOU are a threat you're sadly mistaken. I understand your past comments about prying your guns from your cold dead hands and all, but that's what will certainly happen as it happens daily already.

IMO, in the unlikely event our government does try to turn on its citizens, our only hope is the men and women in uniform will refuse.
Reply
#74
(11-19-2014, 09:15 PM)Hugo Wrote:
(11-19-2014, 08:56 PM)MarkM Wrote:
(11-19-2014, 08:25 PM)Hugo Wrote:
(11-19-2014, 06:21 PM)MarkM Wrote:
(11-18-2014, 11:08 PM)Hugo Wrote: Actually, debating the second amendment is not taken seriously, because it is succinct.

Yeah like when it talks about militias. What the hell are those things anyway? At least they are "well-regulated."

Quote:As passed by the Congress and preserved in the National Archives:

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.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State (common knowledge that EVERY COUNTRY ON THE PLANET has a standing military, and this new country would need one as well), the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. (follow the simple logic, because the Government must keep an armed militia..... the PEOPLE need to be allowed to defend themselves FROM it.)

I do not understand the mental gymnastics it takes to try to twist this easy concept up. But carry on... you just don't get the one thing that has kept us as free as we have been for as long as we have been. If you get your way.... we are serfs to the Lords.

It's obvious that you don't understand. Let me explain it to you.

First off, the Militia is not a standing army. Standing armies were outlawed in the Constitution. Under Sec 8, the powers of Congress, it says Congress has the power,

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

See there, what the Founders did? You can only have an Army for two years. Then you have to decide if you want to keep it for another two years. That's not a typo. The Founders thought a big, ol Army just standing around was trouble in the making. They didn't want it. Curiously though, the Founders thought a Navy was indispensable. The very next power of Congress is,

To provide and maintain a Navy;

Let's recap, Navies and Militias, good. Armies, suspect. There's no mention at all of an Air Force so I guess all those flyboys are UnConstitutional, but that's another story.

So just what was a Militia for anyway? Well, it was most assuredly not for protecting the People from the Government. Quite the opposite, in fact. The Militia was there to protect the Government from the People. It says so in the same section. The Congress has the power,

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

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;


See that? The Militias "serve the US" and among other things "suppress insurrections." That would be the peeps when they act up all illegal like.

This is exactly what happened during Shays Rebellion. Shay and his friends decided they didn't want to pay no stinkin' taxes to no gummit. They said, "Hell no. Don't tread on me, you Federalists!" President Washington said, "Well we'll see about that." He gather up the local militias and went out to have a conversation with Mr. Shays. Let's just say that the militia did its part (shots were fired; neighbors were killed) and the taxes were paid.

It is beyond ludicrous to suggest that the Founders intended for bands of merry men to take up arms in order to level grievances against the very government they worked so dang hard to establish. Oh sure you can quote TJ about the roots of democracy being watered with blood -- but he was talking about the French Revolution (you idiot). There are no provisions -- none whatsoever -- in any founding document that authorizes citizens to take arms against the government. In fact the opposite is the case. The GOVERNMENT has the legal authority to defend itself from the People. (They CAN get ornery sometimes.)

If what you suggest were true, the Confederates would have had a Constitutional right to fight the Union. They did not. They never claimed to have one. They were rebels. Outlaws.

The thing that has kept us free is the UNITED STATES military and US laws. Not a bunch of armed lunatics trying to bite the very hand that feeds them.

Clear that up for you?

Dear God, you have been fed and regurgitate a load of crap sometimes. I feel sorry for you.

Prove it.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html
Reply
#75
Man, I almost forgot the best part.

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.

Check it out: What is a Militia necessary for? NOT the people. A free State! Note too that the Founders say "a" State, not "the" States individually, or "the United States." No, they mean "a" State, as in a platonic form of State. A State is a government. The Militia is necessary for the Government. And the people are necessary for the Militia.

You do not have a Constitutional right to take up arms against the government (or any free government, for that matter.) Sorry.
Reply
#76
(11-19-2014, 09:16 PM)Valuesize Wrote:
(11-19-2014, 08:25 PM)Hugo Wrote: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State (common knowledge that EVERY COUNTRY ON THE PLANET has a standing military, and this new country would need one as well), the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. (follow the simple logic, because the Government must keep an armed militia..... the PEOPLE need to be allowed to defend themselves FROM it.)

I do not understand the mental gymnastics it takes to try to twist this easy concept up. But carry on... you just don't get the one thing that has kept us as free as we have been for as long as we have been. If you get your way.... we are serfs to the Lords.

I'm 100% pro gun ownership for law abiding, sane individuals to do as they lawfully please with them. This includes hobby target shooting, hunting, open or conceal carry for personal protection at home or in public etc, but if you think your guns are going to make a bit of difference if the government decides YOU are a threat you're sadly mistaken. I understand your past comments about prying your guns from your cold dead hands and all, but that's what will certainly happen as it happens daily already.

IMO, in the unlikely event our government does try to turn on its citizens, our only hope is the men and women in uniform will refuse.

Or you could just vote them out of office.
Reply
#77
(11-19-2014, 09:42 PM)MarkM Wrote: Man, I almost forgot the best part.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State (the Government will have a military), the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Check it out: What is a Militia necessary for? NOT the people. A free State! Note too that the Founders say "a" State, not "the" States individually, or "the United States." No, they mean "a" State, as in a platonic form of State. A State is a government. The Militia is necessary for the Government. And the people are necessary for the Militia.

You do not have a Constitutional right to take up arms against the government (or any free government, for that matter.) Sorry.

Laughing And, you prove MY point.
Reply
#78
(11-19-2014, 10:08 PM)Hugo Wrote:
(11-19-2014, 09:42 PM)MarkM Wrote: Man, I almost forgot the best part.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State (the Government will have a military), the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Check it out: What is a Militia necessary for? NOT the people. A free State! Note too that the Founders say "a" State, not "the" States individually, or "the United States." No, they mean "a" State, as in a platonic form of State. A State is a government. The Militia is necessary for the Government. And the people are necessary for the Militia.

You do not have a Constitutional right to take up arms against the government (or any free government, for that matter.) Sorry.

Laughing And, you prove MY point.

OK, I didn't use color and my words are all the same size, but I don't see how your point has been proved. Can you use some new words to explain it to me?
Reply
#79
(11-19-2014, 10:16 PM)MarkM Wrote:
(11-19-2014, 10:08 PM)Hugo Wrote:
(11-19-2014, 09:42 PM)MarkM Wrote: Man, I almost forgot the best part.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State (the Government will have a military), the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Check it out: What is a Militia necessary for? NOT the people. A free State! Note too that the Founders say "a" State, not "the" States individually, or "the United States." No, they mean "a" State, as in a platonic form of State. A State is a government. The Militia is necessary for the Government. And the people are necessary for the Militia.

You do not have a Constitutional right to take up arms against the government (or any free government, for that matter.) Sorry.

Laughing And, you prove MY point.

OK, I didn't use color and my words are all the same size, but I don't see how your point has been proved. Can you use some new words to explain it to me?

You admit that the Militia is of/for the government. The second part of the Amendment CLEARLY gives the right to bear arms to the PEOPLE. ALL of the people.

Are you intentionally obtuse?
Reply
#80
(11-19-2014, 10:40 PM)Hugo Wrote:
(11-19-2014, 10:16 PM)MarkM Wrote:
(11-19-2014, 10:08 PM)Hugo Wrote:
(11-19-2014, 09:42 PM)MarkM Wrote: Man, I almost forgot the best part.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State (the Government will have a military), the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Check it out: What is a Militia necessary for? NOT the people. A free State! Note too that the Founders say "a" State, not "the" States individually, or "the United States." No, they mean "a" State, as in a platonic form of State. A State is a government. The Militia is necessary for the Government. And the people are necessary for the Militia.

You do not have a Constitutional right to take up arms against the government (or any free government, for that matter.) Sorry.

Laughing And, you prove MY point.

OK, I didn't use color and my words are all the same size, but I don't see how your point has been proved. Can you use some new words to explain it to me?

You admit that the Militia is of/for the government. The second part of the Amendment CLEARLY gives the right to bear arms to the PEOPLE. ALL of the people.

Are you intentionally obtuse?

I never disputed that the People have the right to bear arms. Clearly they do. However, you claim they have those arms so they can fight the government. That is incorrect. The amendment clearly states they have those arms to fight FOR the government. That is a big difference. You just admitted as much when you agreed that "the Militia is of/for the government." I'm afraid YOU have proved MY point.

That's good. We're both better off for it.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)