The Attack on the 2nd Amendment Continues

Seggy said:
I don't play chicken with the mods even if I vehemently disagree with them because after all, I won't win that pissing match. Also it's only "trolling" to you because you disagree with my position.
Click to expand...

No, it's trolling because it's trolling. I disagree with ATN, Jtrain, and many others - but they don't troll. As for playing chicken with the mods - not sure what you mean by that. Turk got banned for trolling and admitting he likes to get a rise out of people. You have admitted the same thing and get your ass kissed at every opportunity. That isn't playing chicken, that is pointing out an obvious fact that everyone knows. You should enjoy your privileged status here silently rather than try to somehow justify - makes the blatant hypocrisy behind it more glaringly obvious.
 
drunkenbeagle said:
I hope no one takes the interwebs so seriously, might disagree about things online, but it in no way means I don't like and respect people in real life.
Click to expand...

IMHO, this is the most important bottom line of all. Several people I have disagreements with on the internet I like to hang out with in person...and that's a good thing.

In fact, there are lots of people with whom I disagree with on many topics in real life, too, yet are great friends with. As I've said before, the people who disagree are the ones who need to have discussions together the most. This topic is certainly no different.
 
Nark said:
Seggy
This is what you don't understand. You don't need to be a LEO or have military training to own and operate a firearm. You need the sense to know whether or not to pull the trigger.
Click to expand...

Then we need background checks to make sure people have that sense.
 
Seggy said:
Then we need background checks to make sure people have that sense.
Click to expand...

The 2nd Amendment is a Positive Right. Like the 1st. Which is to say that it's not incumbent upon the citizen to "prove" that they should have it, but rather incumbent upon the State to prove that they should not. Would you vote for a law which suggested that someone should have their 1st Amendment rights abrogated because the Government believed that, based on their prior behavior, they might "scream 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre"? I mean, even provided that such a law were Constitutional, which it seems to me that it would obviously not be. The thing about rights is that once they're gone, they're almost impossible to get back, whereas the opposite is almost never true. Treating them casually (or hysterically) is a receipe for tyranny.
 
Boris Badenov said:
The 2nd Amendment is a Positive Right. Like the 1st. Which is to say that it's not incumbent upon the citizen to "prove" that they should have it, but rather incumbent upon the State to prove that they should not. Would you vote for a law which suggested that someone should have their 1st Amendment rights abrogated because the Government believed that, based on their prior behavior, they might "scream 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre"? I mean, even provided that such a law were Constitutional, which it seems to me that it would obviously not be. The thing about rights is that once they're gone, they're almost impossible to get back, whereas the opposite is almost never true. Treating them casually (or hysterically) is a receipe for tyranny.
Click to expand...

The 1st Amendment is not as absolute as you try to make it sound here. There are some things that if you say, you can spend quite a whole lot of time in jail. Heck, even saying curse words in some places are illegal.

Likewise, the 2nd Amendment was not intended to be as absolute as you would like it to be. 'Well Regulated' was mentioned and you gun folks need to remember that.
 
Seggy said:
The 1st Amendment is not as absolute as you try to make it sound here. There are some things that if you say, you can spend quite a whole lot of time in jail. Heck, even saying curse words in some places are illegal.

Likewise, the 2nd Amendment was not intended to be as absolute as you would like it to be. 'Well Regulated' was mentioned and you gun folks need to remember that.
Click to expand...

If you think "we'll regulated" means anything like "military" or "good aim" or "common sense" you would be wrong as most of the lefties who try and argue the 2nd amendment. I will save you the trouble that those of us who actually read constitutional law an federalist papers had to go through and tell you what it means. It means you are properly armed and ready to be called upon to fight to protect your Constitution. I really wish people would read this stuff before trying to modern day English with 1700s English writings.
 
Pilotdude3407 said:
It means you are properly armed and ready to be called upon to fight to protect your Constitution.
Click to expand...

That is called the National Guard.

I really wish people would read this stuff before trying to modern day English with 1700s English writings.
Click to expand...

You may be the one who needs to do a little more research.

It's comical the authority some speak on here of what they want to interpret the 2nd Amendment to mean.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
The Founders wanted nothing to do with a standing army, and that includes the National Guard. Your ignorance is showing again.
Click to expand...

Ok, I'll play along with you game here. You are dead wrong in this post, but I will play along to illustrate my point.

Even if the Founders didn't want a standing Army/National Guard, the bottom line is we have one now. The need and logic to have a standing Army/National Guard was seen as a necessity for this nation. Using that logic, our gun laws need to be tweaked to reflect the necessity and need of our society today.
 
Seggy said:
You are dead wrong in this post
Click to expand...

Source?

Even if the Founders didn't want a standing Army/National Guard, the bottom line is we have one now. The need and logic to have a standing Army/National Guard was seen as a necessity for this nation. Using that logic, our gun laws need to be tweaked to reflect the necessity and need of our society today.
Click to expand...

Then you need to be pushing for a repeal of the 2nd Amendment. Since you don't do that, you have no integrity on this issue.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
Source?
Click to expand...

Constitution Article I, Section 8, Clause 15

Congress also has the power to declare war. It was going to be a tad difficult to do so if they didn't have a standing Army/Militia to draw from.


Then you need to be pushing for a repeal of the 2nd Amendment. Since you don't do that, you have no integrity on this issue.
Click to expand...

With that logic, you can make a terrorist threat and NOT be put in jail as its a violation of the 1st Amendment.

Don't question my integrity as I disagree with you point if view.
 
Seggy said:
Constitution Article I, Section 8, Clause 15
Click to expand...

You need to do a little more research on what the militia is in the context of the Constitution and how the Founders viewed it. Here's a hint: you're a member of it.

With that logic, you can make a terrorist threat and NOT be put in jail as its a violation of the 1st Amendment.
Click to expand...

Actually, the SCOTUS has found that that's not a violation of the 1st Amendment. Do I need to refer you to Heller again?

Don't question my integrity as I disagree with you point if view.
Click to expand...

Yes, I do question your integrity, because you seek to rob me of my Constitutional rights without going through the amendment process that the Founders put in place.
 
Seggy said:
Ok, I'll play along with you game here. You are dead wrong in this post, but I will play along to illustrate my point.

Even if the Founders didn't want a standing Army/National Guard, the bottom line is we have one now. The need and logic to have a standing Army/National Guard was seen as a necessity for this nation. Using that logic, our gun laws need to be tweaked to reflect the necessity and need of our society today.
Click to expand...


I posit that because we now have a standing army that a citizens right to bear arms is more critical than ever.



Also:

4egutyru.jpg
 
Seggy said:
That is called the National Guard.
Click to expand...

Actually, that is only one half of "the militia". The other half is what Pilotdude3407 was talking about; the unorganized militia, which is every able-bodied male of at least 17 and under 45 years of age who is not a member of the National Guard (ergo, eligible for the draft).

You're one of 'em.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top