Guns: how much longer will it take ....

@oralloy,

If it were clesr people would not have een arguing about what it means for 230 years, and the nra would not have been able to hijack it with their fantasy reinterpretation of it It's what it says. It's about guns for a militia which we don't rellly have in any sense that would be familiar to the framersin Heller. Besides, the common law, not the constitution, has has regulated guns and their use throughout our history in ways you would hate, and SCOTUS did not bat an eye. For example, common law barred ownership of guns by slaves, and no one in power batted an eye. The rules have always been changingbecasuse the amendment is ambiguous, despite what you keep pushinf.

2 Replies

@MontereyJack,

The fact that progressives argue against reality is not evidence that reality is unclear or ambiguous. It is evidence that progressives are delusional.

The legal history of the right to keep and bear arms is very clear that it also covers gun ownership for private self defense.

However, if you want to enforce the militia provisions of the Second Amendment in addition to the provisions covering private self defense, I am all for that.

Note that as militiamen we will have the right to have assault rifles, grenades/grenade launchers, and bazookas.

I wouldn't mind having a closet full of 84mm bazookas. So much for body armor. Mr. Green

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT4

2 Replies

@oralloy,

that reply meets your usual standard of vacuity fully.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

When you first made your last post, there was absolutely no content there, just therheader. That's when I called it vacuous. By the time I posted, you had edited it and put some content in. It's just as vacuous with content as it was blank.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

What is it about facts that progressives most object to?

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

If it were clear people would not have been arguing about what it means for 230 years, and the NRA would not have been able to hijack it with their fantasy reinterpretation of it It's what it says. It's about guns for a militia which we don't really have in any sense that would be familiar to the framers in Heller.

You are wrong. If it were guns for the militia, the framers would have said "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms will not be infringed." But, it says "people".

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

You're wrong. It's clearly about guns fkor militia purposes, since the framers did not trust standing armies, and the brits had a history of banning guns for political groups the govt didn't like . for two centuries the 2nd amendment was viewed as a communal right, not an individual right, until the nra highjacked it with the conservative justices.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

they object to your confusing opinion with fact.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

Which one of these guys who is interpreting the constitution is on the supreme court? Its just more nra bull shyt by some brain dead conservatives.

2 Replies

@RABEL222,

Progressives sure don't like it when people state facts.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

they object to your confusing opinion with fact.

You cannot provide any examples of me ever having done such a thing.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

You're wrong. It's clearly about guns for militia purposes, since the framers did not trust standing armies,

The legal history of the right quite clearly shows that it also includes people having guns for private self defense.

That said, if you want to start enforcing the militia provisions as well as the private self defense provisions, I am all for it.

As militiamen we have the right to have assault rifles (and I don't mean guns that are semi-auto-only), grenades (both launched and hand-thrown), grenade launchers, and bazookas.

I'm all in on enforcing the militia provisions of the Second Amendment too. Let's get the courts start enforcing the entire right. Just think what an 84mm bazooka will do to a bad guy's body armor. Mr. Green

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT4

MontereyJack wrote:

and the brits had a history of banning guns for political groups the govt didn't like.

Actually the Brits are the people who passed the right to keep and bear arms to us.

MontereyJack wrote:

for two centuries the 2nd amendment was viewed as a communal right, not an individual right,

Wrong again. It has always been understood to be an individual right.

MontereyJack wrote:

until the nra highjacked it with the conservative justices.

Having justices who do not allow progressives to violate our civil liberties is hardly hijacking.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Are you going to answer my question about which of those clowns were supreme court justices?

1 Reply

@RABEL222,

Penn and Teller and brain dead conservatives? Penn is actually a die hard atheist and libertarian, you are a twisted and demented leftists if you think he's a conservative. Then again anyone to the right of Marx is a conservative to you extreme leftists on A2K.

0 Replies

@RABEL222,

I assumed that your question was rhetorical.

What does it matter whether they are Supreme Court justices? Appeal to authority are logical fallacies.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Keep that in mind the next time you cite blackstone or heller or the nra or trump, you are appealing to authority and that's a logical fallacy, in your own words. You just shot down all your own arguments.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

Keep that in mind the next time you cite blackstone or heller or the nra or trump, you are appealing to authority and that's a logical fallacy, in your own words.

That depends on why I am citing them.

If I was citing Heller as proof of what the Second Amendment means, then yes, that would be an appeal to authority fallacy.

But if I am citing Heller merely to show what the Supreme Court has ruled about the issue, then that would not be an appeal to authority fallacy.

MontereyJack wrote:

You just shot down all your own arguments.

Hardly. I do not rely on the words of the Supreme Court to establish what the Second Amendment means.

How is your support for the militia aspect of the Second Amendment coming along? Will I be able to go buy some 84mm bazookas soon?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT4

1 Reply

Quote:

A teacher in the US state of Washington has been arrested after allegedly threatening to shoot and kill students.

When questioned by police at her home on Wednesday, Julie Hillend-Jones, 58, did not back down from the threats.

She has been placed on administrative leave from Emerald Ridge High School in Puyallup, about 35 miles (56km) south of Seattle, where she taught geometry.

It was not clear what prompted her to make the threat. No weapons were recovered during the arrest.

She initially made the comments on Tuesday night to another adult, who then alerted local education officials. They then contacted the sheriff's office.

School district officials said Ms Hillend-Jones had immediately been placed on administrative leave.

Detective Ed Troyer of Pierce County Sheriff's Department said she was being held on multiple charges.

"If a kid makes those kind of statements, they end up going to jail, and they have to pay the price for it," Troyer told local KOMO News. "If a teacher makes them, that's a bad example and they have to be held accountable just as well."

According to KOMO News, one of Ms Hillend-Jones's students, Brooklyn Bisson, said: "I was really shocked to hear that it was her because she's a very much like a I'm-here-to-help-you type teacher."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-50417637

0 Replies

@oralloy,

total bullshit red herring. a militia member in the 18th century couldn't hitch up his plow mule and take a cannon home with him along with his musket.

2 Replies

Guns: how much longer will it take ....

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know