New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

* To Protect and Serve*

Max R.

On the road
Supporting Member
for members of a well-regulated militia, obviously....by the way, if you really believe that, then that means you believe any citizen who owns a gun can also own a shoulder fired ground to air missile system, or a bazooka, or land mines, because they, too, are all "arms," just as much as an assault weapon is. and i bet even 98% of all trump voters do not believe those arms should be legal.
Don't forget the nukes! I just ordered a 10 kiloton tactical nuke through Amazon. Awesome!!!! /sarcasm

 

kaz

Small l libertarian
so is the part about being part of a well-regulated militia and the right to keep, not own, arms, all arms of war, not just guns. that part keeps flying over your pointy head.
If you could read, you'd re-realize that's an explanation, not a condition.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Jim: It's a right of government. It means the military can have guns. What does "infringed" mean? That's an archaic word. No one knows what it even means. Shall not be infinged, that means it's a suggestion, right? The founding fathers were giving the government the right to decide if we can have guns or not, that's why it's in the Bill of Suggestions, I mean, I mean ...

 

llovejim

Current Champion
Not really, you're just stupid apparently.
learn to read, boy. it won't hurt, you might even begin to post actual opinions not just lame ass attempts at an insult....

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep (if it was for private citizens, why not own, not just keep as long as you are in the well-regulated militia?) and bear Arms (Arms, not guns. The Founding Fathers knew private citizens need to own guns if they want, for hunting, for protecting their homes, this was a long time ago before butcher shops and police all over the place), shall not be infringed.

you need to remember amendments limited what CONGRESS could do...in those days of no real standing army, militias were necessary in each area for common defense, not only of each state, but of the country as a whole. And they wanted to protect well regulated militias from being controlled by a federal Congress.
 

OldTrapper

Council Member
Who decided it was done away with? The process for changing the Constitution is 2/3, 2/3 and 3/4. If you have a reasonable proposal to alter the Constitution, that is the process you follow. So far, it hasn't been done. And public safety is a strange term for disarming the population and leaving us subject to criminals. There was all kinds of safety in Columbine, Newtown, Virginia Tech, ..., huh?

And I have an extensive gun collection. I am the oldest on both sides of the family and inherited the bulk of guns from both sides before starting my own efforts to add to my collection
Your question involved "Shall not be infringed". How many military weapons do you own? Machine guns? Missiles? The very idea that ex-cons cannot own a weapon is an "infringement". So, the "right" to own a weapon has already been "infringed" upon. And no amendment was used.

And "public safety" is the excused used.
 

llovejim

Current Champion
If you could read, you'd re-realize that's an explanation, not a condition.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Jim: It's a right of government. It means the military can have guns. What does "infringed" mean? That's an archaic word. No one knows what it even means. Shall not be infinged, that means it's a suggestion, right? The founding fathers were giving the government the right to decide if we can have guns or not, that's why it's in the Bill of Suggestions, I mean, I mean ...

okay, you are arguing some good points. but does that mean, using your definition, that all arms of war can be owned by private citizens, without exclusion or infringement, even shoulder fired ground to air missile systems, bazookas, land mines, cannons, tanks, etc? if not, why not?
 

freyasman

Senator
learn to read, boy. it won't hurt, you might even begin to post actual opinions not just lame ass attempts at an insult....

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep (if it was for private citizens, why not own, not just keep as long as you are in the well-regulated militia?) and bear Arms (Arms, not guns. The Founding Fathers knew private citizens need to own guns if they want, for hunting, for protecting their homes, this was a long time ago before butcher shops and police all over the place), shall not be infringed.

you need to remember amendments limited what CONGRESS could do...in those days of no real standing army, militias were necessary in each area for common defense, not only of each state, but of the country as a whole. And they wanted to protect well regulated militias from being controlled by a federal Congress.
Like I said, you're apparently too stupid to comprehend what you read.

You can go now.
 

OldTrapper

Council Member

Max R.

On the road
Supporting Member
so is the part about being part of a well-regulated militia and the right to keep, not own, arms, all arms of war, not just guns. that part keeps flying over your pointy head.
You keep forgetting that self-defense is an unalienable right and refuse to accept that the Constitution limits the Feds, not citizens. Not to mention the fact most Liberals think Trump is a wannabe dictator but still seek to empower Trump by disarming the public in favor of only arming the military and the police. Do you even understand why the Founders wanted an armed population? Why do you refuse to accept the truth?



 

kaz

Small l libertarian
Your question involved "Shall not be infringed". How many military weapons do you own? Machine guns? Missiles?
You believe in the right to free speech. So how much porn have you produced? Have you publicly threatened violence or assassinations? Have you yelled fire in a crowded movie house?

What a stupid question. No idea what your point is


The very idea that ex-cons cannot own a weapon is an "infringement". So, the "right" to own a weapon has already been "infringed" upon. And no amendment was used.

And "public safety" is the excused used.
DUE PROCESS CLAUSE

My Gawd you're ignorant. So locking up criminals is a violation of their Constitutional rights? Searching their houses when they are on probation? They are allowed to take guns into prisons? No to all of those because of the

DUE PROCESS CLAUSE

What about that don't you understand?
 

llovejim

Current Champion
You keep forgetting that self-defense is an unalienable right and refuse to accept that the Constitution limits the Feds, not citizens. Not to mention the fact most Liberals think Trump is a wannabe dictator but still seek to empower Trump by disarming the public in favor of only arming the military and the police. Do you even understand why the Founders wanted an armed population? Why do you refuse to accept the truth?



that is my point...the Founding Fathers assumed the right of private citizens to own guns!! that is why the Second Amendment mentions well regulated militias and keeping arms of war, not private citizens and owning guns. see the difference? do you think they just threw in words for effect or did not know the difference between keeping and owning or arms of war and guns only?
 

Max R.

On the road
Supporting Member
Your question involved "Shall not be infringed". How many military weapons do you own? Machine guns? Missiles? The very idea that ex-cons cannot own a weapon is an "infringement". So, the "right" to own a weapon has already been "infringed" upon. And no amendment was used.

And "public safety" is the excused used.
Are these military weapons you seek to ban?
Img_3614.jpg
1911A1.jpg
 

Max R.

On the road
Supporting Member
that is my point...the Founding Fathers assumed the right of private citizens to own guns!! that is why the Second Amendment mentions well regulated militias and keeping arms of war, not private citizens and owning guns. see the difference? do you think they just threw in words for effect or did not know the difference between keeping and owning or arms of war and guns only?
What's the difference between guns and weapons of war?

Are the two weapons of war in my previous post the guns you want to ban from private ownership?
 

llovejim

Current Champion
You believe in the right to free speech. So how much porn have you produced? Have you publicly threatened violence or assassinations? Have you yelled fire in a crowded movie house?

What a stupid question. No idea what your point is




DUE PROCESS CLAUSE

My Gawd you're ignorant. So locking up criminals is a violation of their Constitutional rights? Searching their houses when they are on probation? They are allowed to take guns into prisons? No to all of those because of the

DUE PROCESS CLAUSE

What about that don't you understand?
so laws prohibiting guns on airplanes and in courthouses and in prison if you visit someone or in a state legislature when it is in session are unconstitutional? are they not obvious infringements?
 

kaz

Small l libertarian
okay, you are arguing some good points. but does that mean, using your definition, that all arms of war can be owned by private citizens, without exclusion or infringement, even shoulder fired ground to air missile systems, bazookas, land mines, cannons, tanks, etc? if not, why not?
What it means to me is:

Government cannot restrict the right of citizens to own "arms of war." Note that guns when the Constitution were the basic "arms of war."

The Founders foresaw that things could change and gave us a process to amend it. That process is 2/3, 2/3 and 3/4. It is NOT 50% + 1 and it is NOT 5/9. So if you want to alter the second, propose what you think are reasonable changes and let's publicly debate them.

Also, that you have a right to own a weapon doesn't give you a means to own it. Government is not required to acquire or sell you arms. The 2nd does not say you have a right to acquire any arms you want, it tells government to stay out of it.

It's pretty clear that's what it says this:

Militias are necessary for the right of a free State. That means both security from foreign States and just as if not more importantly from our own State (The Federal government, this is very clear in their personal writings). Militias are defined by the people.

Therefore,

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The right protected is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

George Washington: (when asked to be king) Why exchange one tyrant for another?

Thomas Jefferson: The tree of liberty must be fed occasionally with the blood of tyrants and patriots

Founding fathers generally: An armed population is the first defense against tyranny

People no longer fear the government, which is why government no longer fears the people and why it's able to remove us of one liberty after another.

Does citizens having bazookas concern me? Sure. Does government's ability to remove any weapon they decide to ban scare me more? You betcha
 

Max R.

On the road
Supporting Member
so laws prohibiting guns on airplanes and in courthouses and in prison if you visit someone or in a state legislature when it is in session are unconstitutional? are they not obvious infringements?
First, you're allowed to carry guns on airplanes. You're just required to check them first.

Second, lawmakers are pussies. It's common knowledge. As for prisons, there are laws preventing adjudicated people from having access to guns so, yeah, a person can't visit with a prisoner with a gun but they can check it and have it returned upon departure. Not what you are seeking to do.
 

llovejim

Current Champion
What's the difference between guns and weapons of war?

Are the two weapons of war in my previous post the guns you want to ban from private ownership?
it is up to each state or even congress to decide how lethal any gun any person can own might be. why go back in time to try and find a loophole? how about land mines? i mean, just because you feel the need to lay a few land mines on your property, to protect yourself from invading guatemalans doesn't mean you might set some in front of a public building in an attempt to slaughter people in public. right?
 

kaz

Small l libertarian
so laws prohibiting guns on airplanes and in courthouses and in prison if you visit someone or in a state legislature when it is in session are unconstitutional? are they not obvious infringements?
Of course not. You have a right to have guns on your own property and on public property. You don't have the right to take guns onto other citizen's property without permission or into government buildings.

While I totally support allowing teachers to arm themselves, I have consistently argued it is NOT a Constitutional issue. There is no Constitutional right to take a gun into a government school. Though government laws against guns in private schools are Unconstitutional. But the school has the right to ban guns, even if it's a stupid move.

You don't have free speech rights in court. Why would you have gun rights?
 
Top