|
PreparationH
apply daily

Registered: 03/28/05
Posts: 18,359
Loc: Amsterdam
Last seen: 1 day, 22 hours
|
Re: The second amendment is not compatible with the Democratic party. [Re: christopera]
#26085139 - 07/01/19 08:53 PM (4 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
christopera said: The idea the people would fight the government is one thing. The legalities of it are something else.
It's a complete and total fabrication to believe the second amendment provides citizens with the right to fight the government, tyrannical or not. It says absolutely nothing about tyranny. In the 250 years of second amendment precedent, not a word about fighting tyranny.
As a result, this thread is based in imagination land, one where gun fantasies run rampant and facts take the back seat.
The cherry on top is in OP's own source, apparently OP believes it proves that the second amendment lets citizens murder tyrants. Of course it basically counters everything that was stated in post 1. It should be noted, "tyranny" is only mentioned once in the entire article, I've posted it below.
https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/amendments/amendment-ii
Quote:
Much has changed since 1791. The traditional militia fell into desuetude, and state-based militia organizations were eventually incorporated into the federal military structure. The nation’s military establishment has become enormously more powerful than eighteenth century armies. We still hear political rhetoric about federal tyranny, but most Americans do not fear the nation’s armed forces and virtually no one thinks that an armed populace could defeat those forces in battle. Furthermore, eighteenth century civilians routinely kept at home the very same weapons they would need if called to serve in the militia, while modern soldiers are equipped with weapons that differ significantly from those generally thought appropriate for civilian uses. Civilians no longer expect to use their household weapons for militia duty, although they still keep and bear arms to defend against common criminals (as well as for hunting and other forms of recreation).
That is from one of the authors and one of their interpretations which I disagree with, clearly.
I find it entertaining though that I make the statement that the second amendment is not compatible with modern democrats and many of you all come out supporting the notion. Guess I was right
|
christopera
Stranger


Registered: 10/13/17
Posts: 14,471
Last seen: 8 minutes, 24 seconds
|
Re: The second amendment is not compatible with the Democratic party. [Re: PreparationH]
#26085622 - 07/02/19 06:54 AM (4 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
No, that’s you making more stuff up.
Just because I don’t imagine things about the second amendment doesn’t mean I don’t support it.
Also, why would you post information you disagree with? You’re trying to disprove yourself?
-------------------- Enjoy the process of your search without succumbing to the pressure of the result. A Dorito is pizza, change my mind. Bank and Union with The Shroomery at the Zuul on The internet - now with %'s and things I’m sorry it had to be me.
Edited by christopera (07/02/19 06:58 AM)
|
PreparationH
apply daily

Registered: 03/28/05
Posts: 18,359
Loc: Amsterdam
Last seen: 1 day, 22 hours
|
Re: The second amendment is not compatible with the Democratic party. [Re: christopera] 3
#26085856 - 07/02/19 10:02 AM (4 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Na just one of the authors interpreting it wrongly, I agree with the other author, just read it all you will understand
Also, Trump Jr. posting directly at koods these days

stay mad
|
koods
Ribbit



Registered: 05/26/11
Posts: 107,128
Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs
Last seen: 20 minutes, 52 seconds
|
Re: The second amendment is not compatible with the Democratic party. [Re: PreparationH]
#26085864 - 07/02/19 10:06 AM (4 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Thats great. We’re an independent country now with a massive military. Get out of this 1700’s mindset. Things change. You people make ridiculous arguments.
--------------------
NotSheekle said “if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”
|
christopera
Stranger


Registered: 10/13/17
Posts: 14,471
Last seen: 8 minutes, 24 seconds
|
Re: The second amendment is not compatible with the Democratic party. [Re: PreparationH]
#26085872 - 07/02/19 10:11 AM (4 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
What other author? You've only provided one source, and that source directly contradicted your own argument. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Again, show me a single piece of law that says the second amendment allows civilians to kill tyrants with guns.
If you can't, then you're imagining things. You're allowed to believe whatever you want, that doesn't mean you aren't full of shit.
Also, that meme is exactly the quality of meme I would expect from Trump Jr., flat out retard level. By Trump's standard we should be banning black people from gun ownership, because that's what we did in the 1700's.
-------------------- Enjoy the process of your search without succumbing to the pressure of the result. A Dorito is pizza, change my mind. Bank and Union with The Shroomery at the Zuul on The internet - now with %'s and things I’m sorry it had to be me.
Edited by christopera (07/02/19 11:08 AM)
|
PreparationH
apply daily

Registered: 03/28/05
Posts: 18,359
Loc: Amsterdam
Last seen: 1 day, 22 hours
|
Re: The second amendment is not compatible with the Democratic party. [Re: christopera]
#26085956 - 07/02/19 10:50 AM (4 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Why dont you answer your question for us since you are the confused one. What was the second amendment written for if not to fight tyranny? This should be good.
Also that meme is great. When Trump wins in 2020 because every one of these Democrat candidates suck, antigun voters may be to blame.
|
christopera
Stranger


Registered: 10/13/17
Posts: 14,471
Last seen: 8 minutes, 24 seconds
|
Re: The second amendment is not compatible with the Democratic party. [Re: PreparationH]
#26086002 - 07/02/19 11:15 AM (4 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
What question did I ask?
You made a claim, I asked for supporting evidence. You've failed to provide that evidence. This is typical of fairytale arguments. If you want, you can just admit that the second amendment literally says nothing about killing tyrants with guns. It's that simple.
Since James Madison was all-seeing in regards to fighting tyranny, at least according to gun masturbators, why is that the second amendment says absolutely nothing about tyanny? Maybe his pen broke before he finished writing?
-------------------- Enjoy the process of your search without succumbing to the pressure of the result. A Dorito is pizza, change my mind. Bank and Union with The Shroomery at the Zuul on The internet - now with %'s and things I’m sorry it had to be me.
|
PreparationH
apply daily

Registered: 03/28/05
Posts: 18,359
Loc: Amsterdam
Last seen: 1 day, 22 hours
|
Re: The second amendment is not compatible with the Democratic party. [Re: christopera]
#26086016 - 07/02/19 11:26 AM (4 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Yet you wont tell us what it for, surprise surprise.
|
christopera
Stranger


Registered: 10/13/17
Posts: 14,471
Last seen: 8 minutes, 24 seconds
|
Re: The second amendment is not compatible with the Democratic party. [Re: PreparationH] 1
#26086075 - 07/02/19 12:07 PM (4 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
You're making a burden of proof fallacy. You made the claim, let's see some support.
That said, if we want to look at the second amendment in the context of 250 years of precedent, it seems that the conclusion is that citizens have a right to own guns and they can use them to protect themselves and their property. That is the generalized conclusion of District of Columbia v Heller.
https://www.britannica.com/event/District-of-Columbia-v-Heller https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/dc-v-heller/
Quote:
“The Second Amendment gives you the right to bear arms,” says Jesse Choper, a UC Berkeley Law professor emeritus and the former Berkeley Law dean. “But really, that’s the beginning point of the conversation. As is true with most of the Bill of Rights, the intent is not totally clear, and in fact, the language in the Second Amendment is particularly confusing.”
That confusion, of course, is largely due to this line: “…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.”
For decades, legal scholars and advocates on both sides of the gun control issue have differed over the intended meaning of the Founding Fathers. Did they mean that only those citizens who are organized into official militias by local or regional jurisdictions have the right to bear arms? Or that anyone can keep arms because they might eventually join a “well-regulated” militia? And what about the storage of the arms themselves? Can citizens keep them in their homes, or only in armories that supply the cited well-regulated militias? Further, even assuming that every law-abiding citizen can own firearms, does that right extend to locked-and-loaded open carry in public?
Choper observes the U.S. Supreme Court tacked the issue in the 2008 landmark case, District of Columbia v Heller, and that the justices’ ruling defines basic gun rights today. The majority opinion for that case was written by the late Antonin Scalia, a fervent Constitutional “originalist” and ardent gun enthusiast.
“The interesting thing about District of Columbia v Heller is that Scalia had to accommodate the other four justices who ultimately sided with him, ” Choper says. “As a consequence, it provides a very limited interpretation of the Second Amendment. It stipulates that a person has the right to own a gun to protect himself or herself, family, and property. That’s it. The decision does not imply the right to carry a weapon in public, including public buildings.”
-------------------- Enjoy the process of your search without succumbing to the pressure of the result. A Dorito is pizza, change my mind. Bank and Union with The Shroomery at the Zuul on The internet - now with %'s and things I’m sorry it had to be me.
|
Kryptos
Stranger

Registered: 11/01/14
Posts: 12,847
Last seen: 1 hour, 42 minutes
|
Re: The second amendment is not compatible with the Democratic party. [Re: PreparationH]
#26088514 - 07/03/19 04:40 PM (4 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
PreparationH said: Why dont you answer your question for us since you are the confused one. What was the second amendment written for if not to fight tyranny? This should be good.
Also that meme is great. When Trump wins in 2020 because every one of these Democrat candidates suck, antigun voters may be to blame.
“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.”
The second amendment provides for a defensive militia force, as at the time there was no professional federal army. The Continental Army consisted of a group of state militias that were called up to fight when necessary. Most of them were next to useless. Benedict Arnold managed to whip a few into fighting shape in time to save the US. Now, of course, we have a professional federal military that provides the necessary security of our "free state".
When Trump wins in 2020, I hope some second amendment folk take care of that unpleasant business. LOL JK Wink Wink Nudge Nudge.
|
koods
Ribbit



Registered: 05/26/11
Posts: 107,128
Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs
Last seen: 20 minutes, 52 seconds
|
Re: The second amendment is not compatible with the Democratic party. [Re: Kryptos] 1
#26088526 - 07/03/19 04:45 PM (4 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
When the founding fathers talked about tyrants, they were referring to British monarchs.
--------------------
NotSheekle said “if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”
|
Morel Guy
Stranger


Registered: 01/23/13
Posts: 15,577
Last seen: 4 years, 4 months
|
Re: The second amendment is not compatible with the Democratic party. [Re: koods]
#26088739 - 07/03/19 07:25 PM (4 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Yesterdays perspective is not as valid as todays. I've had run ins with conservative judges. The only Law that ever mattered is don't tread on me. If your for the system, they abide. Take this recent war crimes by a seal for instance. He got off scott free like us law lets all of their own war criminals off. Cause he didn't hurt the system, in 'their' eyes.
-------------------- "in sterquiliniis invenitur in stercore invenitur" In filth it will be found in dung it will be found
|
Kryptos
Stranger

Registered: 11/01/14
Posts: 12,847
Last seen: 1 hour, 42 minutes
|
Re: The second amendment is not compatible with the Democratic party. [Re: Morel Guy]
#26088813 - 07/03/19 08:01 PM (4 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Morel Guy said: Yesterdays perspective is not as valid as todays. I've had run ins with conservative judges. The only Law that ever mattered is don't tread on me. If your for the system, they abide. Take this recent war crimes by a seal for instance. He got off scott free like us law lets all of their own war criminals off. Cause he didn't hurt the system, in 'their' eyes.
Walls don't just keep the others out. They keep yours in.
I think the forgiveness of war crimes is part of that. I would not blame other countries for committing war crimes against US civilians and US troops in retaliation. This may well further escalate to US tourists being attacked, and other US civilians being barred from entering other countries. Which also makes sense, considering the level of violence in US society.
What this means, is that someone who does not support the status quo in the US no longer has a safe harbor anywhere. They can't just leave, because they will forever carry the stain of "former US citizen" on their record.
It's like how there are currently dedicated Nazi hunters that travel the world, find ex-Nazis, and arrest them. I actually think that's a little bit fucked up. Sure, Nazis did bad things, but did every individual do bad things? How many of them joined because the Gestapo showed up, put a gun to their heads, and said "join or die"? Even when they ran at the first opportunity, they will forever be hunted, worldwide.
|
nooneman


Registered: 04/24/09
Posts: 14,700
Loc: Utah
|
Re: The second amendment is not compatible with the Democratic party. [Re: PreparationH]
#26091951 - 07/05/19 05:43 PM (4 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Even if the most liberal democrat on the planet with an explicitly anti-gun policy became president for 8 years, they still wouldn't do anything that would affect the 2nd amendment.
Look at Obama, he was around for 8 years, hated the shit out of guns, spoke out against them frequently, and he still didn't affect the 2nd. It's a constitutional right, and no president is ever going to be able to change that.
The promises from the democratic candidates are empty promises made to appease their base during the primary. This is much ado about nothing.
|
Shenmue
Dark Lord of the Sith

Registered: 12/21/18
Posts: 2,514
|
Re: The second amendment is not compatible with the Democratic party. [Re: nooneman]
#26091988 - 07/05/19 05:57 PM (4 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
nooneman said: Even if the most liberal democrat on the planet with an explicitly anti-gun policy became president for 8 years, they still wouldn't do anything that would affect the 2nd amendment.
Look at Obama, he was around for 8 years, hated the shit out of guns, spoke out against them frequently, and he still didn't affect the 2nd. It's a constitutional right, and no president is ever going to be able to change that.
The promises from the democratic candidates are empty promises made to appease their base during the primary. This is much ado about nothing.
I hate anti-gun people. I fucking hate them 😡. Try asking them the difference between Simi automatic and fully automatic 🤣. They're so stupid.
|
twighead
mͯó



Registered: 08/27/08
Posts: 30,491
Loc: Glenn Gould's Fuck Windmill
Last seen: 8 days, 15 hours
|
Re: The second amendment is not compatible with the Democratic party. [Re: Shenmue] 1
#26091997 - 07/05/19 06:04 PM (4 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
People who don't know EVERYTHING about killing people are RETARDS!
|
Kwyjibo
Stranger


Registered: 07/31/18
Posts: 1,276
Loc: California
Last seen: 2 hours, 2 minutes
|
Re: The second amendment is not compatible with the Democratic party. [Re: Shenmue] 5
#26092098 - 07/05/19 07:04 PM (4 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Shenmue said: ........Simi automatic ......... They're so stupid.
|
christopera
Stranger


Registered: 10/13/17
Posts: 14,471
Last seen: 8 minutes, 24 seconds
|
Re: The second amendment is not compatible with the Democratic party. [Re: Kwyjibo]
#26092221 - 07/05/19 08:32 PM (4 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
How does somebody that doesn't know the difference between a semi automatic gun and a fully automatic gun even masturbate?
-------------------- Enjoy the process of your search without succumbing to the pressure of the result. A Dorito is pizza, change my mind. Bank and Union with The Shroomery at the Zuul on The internet - now with %'s and things I’m sorry it had to be me.
|
koods
Ribbit



Registered: 05/26/11
Posts: 107,128
Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs
Last seen: 20 minutes, 52 seconds
|
Re: The second amendment is not compatible with the Democratic party. [Re: Shenmue]
#26092225 - 07/05/19 08:36 PM (4 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
It’s your fetish.
--------------------
NotSheekle said “if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”
Edited by koods (07/05/19 08:38 PM)
|
Shenmue
Dark Lord of the Sith

Registered: 12/21/18
Posts: 2,514
|
Re: The second amendment is not compatible with the Democratic party. [Re: christopera]
#26092244 - 07/05/19 08:51 PM (4 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
christopera said: How does somebody that doesn't know the difference between a semi automatic gun and a fully automatic gun even masturbate?
Or even have a penis?
|
|