Democratic field boils down to four-jackasses race

If the 2nd Amendment only stated "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed", then I would agree with you totally. This statement is certainly unambiguous. But unfortunately, this statement is preference by "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State". Why do you think that only the half truth is always stated? But the "well regulated militia", and "the security of a free state", always seem to be ignored. Do you know what a dependent clause means? I guess we can't let the whole truth get in the way of a half truth.

So it is neither ambiguous or unambiguous, it is simply the modern interpretation by the Supreme Court.

 

The citizen militia is the ultimate check on government tyranny. A check which is removed when the right of individual citizens to keep and bear arms is infringed.

“Publication of the first volume of a revised edition of a legal treatise would not ordinarily make news.

But even before it began arriving at law schools last week, Laurence Tribe's American Constitutional Law was causing a stir.

Tribe, a Harvard law professor who is probably the most influential living American constitutional scholar, says he has already gotten hate mail about his new interpretation of the right to bear arms contained in the Second Amendment.

Relegated to a footnote in the first edition of the book in 1978, the right to bear arms earns Tribe's respect in the latest version.

Tribe, well-known as a liberal scholar, concludes that the right to bear arms was conceived as an important political right that should not be dismissed as wholly irrelevant." Rather, Tribe thinks the Second Amendment assures that "the federal government may not disarm individual citizens without some unusually strong justification." Tony Mauro, “Scholar's shift in thinking angers liberals,” USA Today, 8/29/99.

 

The meaning of "well regulated militia" is "well armed civilian population". Or didn't you know that?

 

No, I did not know that. I did not know that "regulated", also meant "armed", and that "militia" also meant "civilian". I thought regulated meant to control, adjust, or manage with rules and regulations. I thought "armed" meant anyone equipped with or carrying a firearm. I also thought "militia" meant a state military force, that is composed of abled-bodied civilians. And, that "civilians" meant anyone who is NOT in the US Military or the State Militia(National Guard). Even a Constitutional Originalist knows that this right is not unlimited. Hence the “prefatory” or justification clause: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state. Why do you think that this clause is usually ignored? And no, they are not the same. And no, they are not even implicit, they are dependent and conditional.

So, I don't conflate the meanings of these terms with not-so-clever semantics, just to commit a false equivocation, or false conclusion fallacy. Do you also think that a "well regulated militia", also mean a well regulated armed citizenry"? If so, then why do you object the loudest to any gun reform legislation? Also, I agree that the rulings by the supreme court, have created a well armed civilian population. We have more guns than cars, and more guns than the entire US population. We have twice as many guns than any other country in the world.

These statistics beg the question, why? Why do we need a fully armed civilian population? An "unarmed society, is a very polite society". There are many countries where guns are illegal(or heavily restricted) for its citizens(England Ireland, New Zealand, Australia, China, India, Viet Nam, North Korea, Venezuela, Iran, Japan, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, etc.). If I had my way, unless you were a member of the US military, shooting clubs, gun collector clubs, Law Enforcement, a State Militia, or the security industry, I would keep the guns where they belong. At the movies, or on the TV. Think how many lives would be saved.

 

The text of the Militia Acts of 1792 clearly explained what the Founding Fathers INTENDED with the term a "well regulated militia".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792#First_Militia_Act_of_1792_(full_text)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792#Second_Militia_Act_of_1792_(full_text)

Taking the time to actually read them establishes that the modern version of the 2nd Amendment is a perversion of the original intent.

 

Among all the other disagreements I've endured, I'm not sure if you are agreeing, or disagreeing with me? I certainly agree with you. There was a clear and defined purpose for the existence of a State militia, at the time this Amendment was drafted. The purpose of the State militia was to protect the state from rebellious uprisings, Government takeover, and eminent invasions from Indian Tribes, and any foreign nation. Our militia, or military is all volunteer now. Therefore, there is no need to have a standing and "well regulated militia".

It is a perversion that people only read what supports their own one-dimensional narrative. And, simply exclude the whole truth. Unfortunately, it is just too late to go back to the original meaning, and purpose, of this Amendment.

 

The original Militia Acts expose a number of NRA and/or gun owner fallacies when they egregiously make fallacious claims about the Founding Fathers and the 2nd Amendment.

The Militia Acts clearly stipulates the firearms must be REGULATED and that a complete REGISTRY of all firearms, ammunition and owners that must be provided to the President each and every year. This negates the whine by the gun obsessed that it is "unconstitutional" to regulate and register all firearms.

Further the Militia Acts stipulates the need for regular TRAINING with firearms. That alone would send off howls of protests from the gun obsessed.

It is never too late to regulate firearms and the vast majority of sane and reasonable gun owners want Universal Background Checks in order to keep firearms out of the hands of the mentally unbalanced.

The precedent exists for this registry and regulation so all that is missing is the political will power to override the NRA and the firearms cartel.

 

First you insult me. Then you insult my city. So, before you insult yourself, maybe you can tell me what Communism is, and why you think I seem like a Communist? Oh, there are no true Communist Countries in the world. Not even in Cuba(Religions are allowed, and not all private ownerships are abolished).

So, my question again, Why do you want to know?​

 

If you read the Militia Acts you must know that the "militia" was every able bodied military age white male in America, and that all of them by law were required to buy and maintain the best military weapons and gear available at the time.

 

Most Americans reject extremist gun control schemes instinctively, because virtually all Americans fear Big Government - even the Americans who vote for Big Government fear it.

Europeans are far more likely to see government as a benign force for good.
I am surprised that people who still live in SF have not gotten over their infatuation with government by now.

 

Obviously you have NOT read the Militia Acts because otherwise you would know that certain professions were EXCLUDED from serving.

Now quote the passage(s) where the Acts STIPULATE that "all of them by law were required to buy and maintain the best military weapons and gear available at the time".

 

Reading is fundamental.

"May 8, 1792
Chap. ⅩⅩⅩⅢ.—An Act more effectually to provide for the National Defence by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States.[1]

Militia how and by whom to be enrolled.Section 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective states, resident therein, who is or shall be of the age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia by the captain or commanding officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this act. And it shall at all times hereafter be the duty of every such captain or commanding officer of a company to enrol every such citizen, as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of eighteen years, or being of the age of eighteen years and under the age of forty-five years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrolment, by a proper non-commissioned officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter,How to be armed and accoutred. provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball: or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear, so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise, or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. 1803, ch. 15. That the commissioned officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger and espontoon, and that from and after five years from the passing of this act, all muskets for arming the militia as herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound. And every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes." Wiki

 

NOTHING in that verbiage dump supports your utterly BOGUS ALLEGATION!

Perhaps you should apply your advice to yourself instead.

 

Of course there is still a need for a well equipped militia. The purpose of the State Militia's was not to protect the state from rebellious uprisings, it was to provide possible additional support for the regular military. In the event of a major defeat, or incapacity, or other need of support of the standing military, the citizens militia is to provide a pool of soldiers from which the military can draw, or to persecute operation against the enemy themselves.

This issue is surrounded by ignorance and stupidity. In the first place, every United States Citizen is a Sovereign with the same rights as a King. That means along with the right to life, every Citizen has the right to protect that life and to have the tools necessary to do that. Now, since no one in England, or New Zealand, Australia, China etc. is a Citizen with sovereignty and the rights of a King they do not have the "right" to keep arms. They are "subjects" and whether or not they are allowed to have arms is the decision of the government who owns them.

Now this right is absolute and inalienable, but it has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment. The Second Amendment only deals with necessity of an armed populace in that it helps to ensure the National Security. That is why the 2nd Amendment is phrased the way it is. It is saying that a well equipped or well performing militia being necessary to defend the country necessitates that every citizen be able to keep and bear arms. Not hunting rifles, military grade rifles.
The armed militia is the last line of defense should the Military not be able to defend the homeland or any part thereof.

 

Fallacious claptrap!

The British Parliament is SOVEREIGN because the English monarch only governs with the CONSENT of the governed AKA the CITIZENS of the United Kingdom.

Individuals cannot be "sovereign citizens" because we UNITED to form our nation under the Constitution that guarantees our individual rights.

Citizens of other nations also have the same individual rights as we do. Anyone in England can purchase a gun if they want to and as long as the pass the background check they can own a gun.

The extreme rightwing bovine excrement that individuals must be entitled to own military grade firearms is asinine. There is no legitimate purpose for owning these weapons because there is no credible threat to our nation.

 

When will you, and people like you understand, that the Government is not a thing or a person? Do you fear Democracy, Religion, or Logic? Of course not. These are ideologies, philosophies, and concepts. They are not real physical things. This is called a "reification fallacy", because it is "we the people" that represent the government. Not some sentient adversarial physical entity, that is threatening the very freedoms and rights that created them in the first place. I'm surprised that the people, wherever you live, don't yet understand that the Government is "we the people", and not just "some of the people". I am also surprised that people like you don't see that the Government is necessary, vital, and imperative, for protecting those freedoms that we both hold so dear. The problem is, that some people think that their freedoms, or views, have more value than others. And, only want the government to do their biddings, and screw the rest of us if we disagree. They can never see the ramifications of their personal views. Nor, do they care.

What extreme gun control schemes/policies? There have been none in the last 3 years. If it were not for the government evening the playing field, some states would have less strict gun reform, and others would have more strict gun reforms. I have no idea why anyone would object to background checks, or prohibiting anyone owning weapons that can cause mass destruction and lives. This is a no brainer. I don't feel safe and secure, knowing that everyone is armed to the teeth. Even if only 1% of the 100's of millions of gun owners, are benign homicidal psychotics and sociopaths, that would still leave millions of madmen with guns. And, you want to give them access to weapons that can destroy more lives? This insanity is fueled by, ignorance, poverty, hopelessness, racism, bigotry, tribalism, intolerance, xenophobia, and despair. Not by "Big Government".

Simply stating, "Of course...", or defining the rationale behind why a Federate State in the 18th century, would want a standing militia in waiting, does not address the question of why this is applicable today. Other than misguided "survivalists", and "doomsday preppers", what conceivable threat would a "well armed, well regulated civilian militia", be protecting us from? The sad truth is, that your emotional and physical security is tied to having a gun. This fake outrage, exaggeration, and unwarranted fear of "Big Government" taking away your 2nd Amendment rights, is just more "smoke and mirrors", and clever semantics, to create more divisiveness. Do you think that the government should just ignore the fears and concerns of families, friends, and loved ones, who have lost someone due to gun violence? Maybe you just don't care, and just blindly hate the same Government, that you will depend on when you are sick and too old to work. Maybe you can offer your informed opinion on how we should address the human cost of gun reform? Instead of just rote parroting NRA talking points?

Again you are misunderstanding context. The example you are citing was during the Tudor times(1485 - 1603). When Henry VIII asserted his sovereignty against the Pope, only to divorce his wife. Individuals do not have sovereignty, they have rights. Countries have sovereignty. If individuals had sovereignty, they would not have to pay taxes, be culpable of for any crime, or become a citizen of this country. The power of sovereignty of our government to govern, is collectively given to it by the consent of "We the people". Please read the Preamble to the Constitution. Especially the 7 articles, that define the structure and power of the Government. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution You do realize that other countries have constitutions? Also, all sovereign countries have rules that citizens must follow, or face the consequences. But does this mean that the government owns its citizens? If you violate the law, fail to pay taxes, etc., does this mean that the government owns you? Just more fallacious logic.

I agree that there is a lot of ignorance surrounding this issue. But I still wouldn't call it stupidity. Sorry, I didn't understand your last paragraph at all.

 

I want Bernie to win the nomination, he couldnt beat FarraKhan or Al Sharpton in a national election

 

You should have read what I post for you.

 

I did and NOTHING in there supported your bovine excrement allegation.

 

Then you need to read it again.

 

In fact, the government is a thing - an inherently evil thing. There is nothing subtle about the true nature of government.

 

WRONG again!

YOU have FAILED to support yet another of your utterly bogus allegations which is becoming boringly tedious to the point of being little more than trolling.

 

Talk about BS! The English are subjects, they are not Citizens. They do not have the same Sovereignty as a US Citizen, and if you doubt that you are ignorant of what citizenry is and how it is defined. For example, in England you have magistrates, who can judge the guilt or innocence of a person accused of a crime. In the US a Citizen is judged only by other Citizens because the government is the servant of the people and the servant cannot judge the masters.
The government officials in England swear an oath to the Queen who is the only "sovereign" in England.
The government officials in the US swear to uphold the Constitution which recognizes and guarantees the sovereignty of the people.

And if your position on National Defense is that there is no "credible threat" then you are incredibly ignorant of the facts. We spend half of all discretionary spending on our military because there is a credible and constant threat to our National Security. We have been targeted by several other countries and there are countless missiles and weapon systems aimed at our country right now. The idea that our Military is indestructible and that we have no need for a militia of the citizens is both naive and dangerous, not to mention completely wrong. To attempt to weaken the National Defense of the United States by disarming the citizenry is tantamount to treason and should be treated accordingly.

 

It's been three weeks now since this thread began and it's still the same four jackasses.

 

Yes the ignorance of this subject is staggering as your post illustrates. The fact is that the citizenry is the last line of defense in our country should our military be unable to stop invasion. Anyone with any credible knowledge of military operations knows that the most difficult war to win is one against guerilla insurgents.
If you think our, or any countries military is invincible then your are sadly misinformed. The fact is that our citizens militia is the last line of defense, and avocation that it be disarmed weakens our National Defense and is tantamount to treason. It should be identified and prosecuted accordingly.
So far as sovereignty, you obviously do not understand the meaning of the word. Citizens in the US are sovereign, meaning they own themselves and their lives and are masters of their government which is the servant of the people. The US the only country where that is true. No other country has sovereign citizens.