|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On May 21 2013 08:14 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2013 08:05 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 21 2013 07:52 Millitron wrote:On May 21 2013 07:48 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 21 2013 07:39 heliusx wrote:On May 21 2013 07:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 21 2013 07:33 heliusx wrote:On May 21 2013 07:19 Paljas wrote:On May 21 2013 06:13 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Considering the actions of the US government over the last two years that are coming to light, the answer to the question "Should people be allowed [by the government, obviously] to own and carry guns is an unequivocal yes, regardless of all other considerations.
The government is not your friend unless you agree with whoever is in charge of it.
The government is not here to help you unless you agree with whoever is in charge of it.
The government is not here to preserve or defend your freedom.
The government is here to ask you questions about your friends and your beliefs what you say when you pray.
The government is here to tail you and access your phone records without a warrant because you're a reporter or media organization reporting things the government wants kept secret.
The government is here to progressively restrict your access to guns.
Then, of course, it won't be only the criminals who have guns - the government will have plenty too.
Fuck the US government whether the Democrats or Republicans or anyone is in charge.
If you pooh-pooh the tyranny argument today you're an ignoramus or a knave. how about moving to canada? like, if you are really so mad about the government, what are you doing in the usa? To use your stellar logic of unending wisdom... why don't gun control advocates just move to Canada. oh wait that's completely retarded. If you have nothing productive to add just keep it to yourself, you have steered this thread into shit daily for a few weeks and frankly it's getting annoying. He's asking why would you stay in a country that you mis-trust so much that you need to hold on to guns in case of tyrannic rule. I can read. I know what he's asking. The guy is flame baiting DEB in multiple threads and consistently steers threads into shit posting. He might be shit posting, but it's a very valid point. If you honestly believe you need guns to prevent your government from becoming tyrannical-- why are you staying in a country that you believe is about to become tyrannical? Just from a logical standpoint. If the country is so dangerous that you need a gun on you to survive walking down the street? Why are you staying in that country? Logically speaking? I'd understand why some guy in a third world country can't emigrate--because he can't financially survive moving to a non-third world country. But that is not true for people in a first world country moving to a third/2nd world country. See, this is absurd. We don't believe the country is going to fall to tyranny (most of us don't, Alex Jones is a pretty small minority), but we still like having the ability to do something about it in the event that it happens. Do you think you're going to be in a car wreck? No? Then why do you prefer to have airbags? Edit: I'm not arguing about carry rights, just possession rights. I am perfectly OK with the government regulating publicly carrying guns. I would prefer if they didn't, but I'm not going to say they have no right to. Because the only part of gun-rights I really care about is the defense against tyranny, and you can do that with or without open carry rights. If its gotten bad enough that you're going to shoot a tyrant's thugs, you probably don't care that carrying that gun is illegal. If this was reddit I'd plus one that sentence lone for awesomeness. Although anecdotal, I do believe I can be in a car wreck at anytime and hence why I keep my eyes on the road and both hands on the wheel. But that's not your point--your point is that too often we publicly treat cars as safer objects than they statistically are and I definitely agree with that. But I don't like driving that much as opposed to most americans so I never understood that cultural concept--although I do think its dumb. I do agree with you on possession rights. Less for tyranny and more for property rights. I'd be as upset as a gun ban as I would be on a car ban. Although a car ban leading to increased dependability on public transit and decreased dependency on oil companies would improve the US both environmentally and health wise (yay more walking!)--but I digress. Right to own the stuff you own is a big reason my family moved to the US and its something I will defend till forever. I'm just not someone who equates regulations with bans. See, it depends on the regulations. Like, high-capacity magazine bans, "Assault Weapon" bans, the NFA, all of them infringe on property rights. You simply cannot own those things, for no good reason. The NFA is the only one that ever made any sense, it tried to prevent the Mafia from getting more machine guns, but by the time it got passed, they had mostly stopped using them anyways. I could get behind background checks if they didn't have to go through an FFL, and if they only returned a yes/no answer, so as to not violate the purchaser's privacy. I do believe we could, in theory, end up with a tyranny at any time. I highly, HIGHLY doubt we will get one any time soon, or even in the next century. But things can change quickly; Hitler did take over in only a decade or so, as did Mao and Lenin. I'd rather be over-prepared than under-prepared.
I, more or less, agree with the first part of your post.
In regards to your last paragraph.
True enough. It takes 1 term for charisma to move a people into action. And it would suck if that movement screwed you over. Most of the Nazi and Communist "dictatorships" all started out as a people's revolution against the corrupt _______. They never really were some guy becoming a dictator more so than a social movement in the wrong direction finding out too late when enough social rights had been stripped. Dictators tap a fear in a people and then allow those people's fears to wreck the country for him.
But...
In defense of Lenin--USSR was pretty cool for most of his time there. It was post Lenin russia that really hit the fan. Which is what you get for hiring trained assassins in your cabinet...
|
On May 21 2013 08:16 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2013 08:13 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 21 2013 08:06 heliusx wrote:On May 21 2013 07:58 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 21 2013 07:48 kmillz wrote:On May 21 2013 07:43 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 21 2013 07:41 kmillz wrote:On May 21 2013 07:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 21 2013 07:33 heliusx wrote:On May 21 2013 07:19 Paljas wrote:
[quote]
how about moving to canada?
like, if you are really so mad about the government, what are you doing in the usa? To use your stellar logic of unending wisdom... why don't gun control advocates just move to Canada. oh wait that's completely retarded. If you have nothing productive to add just keep it to yourself, you have steered this thread into shit daily for a few weeks and frankly it's getting annoying. He's asking why would you stay in a country that you mis-trust so much that you need to hold on to guns in case of tyrannic rule. And you are further de-railing the thread with the same childish point, still waiting for your explanation of why you think there is anything unclear about "shall not be infringed" and what is concrete and detailed about "regulated militia". What are all of the specific details about this well regulated militia? How many people? How many guns? What guns should be in it? Obviously its concrete to you so what are the specifics? What could "shall not be infringed" possibly mean besides don't infringe? A militia is a group of people--otherwise it would say person. Regulated means regulations are enforced--tautologically speaking. In other words, people need to be regulated. Ok and that's all it says, it doesn't say HOW we regulate it: hence it is not concrete or specific. As far as shall not be infringed, do you think that is unclear? On May 21 2013 07:48 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 21 2013 07:39 heliusx wrote:On May 21 2013 07:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 21 2013 07:33 heliusx wrote:On May 21 2013 07:19 Paljas wrote:
[quote]
how about moving to canada?
like, if you are really so mad about the government, what are you doing in the usa? To use your stellar logic of unending wisdom... why don't gun control advocates just move to Canada. oh wait that's completely retarded. If you have nothing productive to add just keep it to yourself, you have steered this thread into shit daily for a few weeks and frankly it's getting annoying. He's asking why would you stay in a country that you mis-trust so much that you need to hold on to guns in case of tyrannic rule. I can read. I know what he's asking. The guy is flame baiting DEB in multiple threads and consistently steers threads into shit posting. He might be shit posting, but it's a very valid point. If you honestly believe you need guns to prevent your government from becoming tyrannical--why are you staying in a country that you believe is about to become tyrannical? Just from a logical standpoint. If the country is so dangerous that you need a gun on you to survive walking down the street? Why are you staying in that country? Logically speaking? I'd understand why some guy in a third world country can't emigrate--because he can't financially survive moving to a non-third world country. But that is not true for people in a first world country moving to a third/2nd world country. No it isn't a valid point. The United States is far safer than most countries from tyranny because of our Constitution. He never said the United States is about to become a tyranny, he said we need to preserve the 2nd amendment so it doesn't get to that point. It does say specifically "Well regulated" which is the opposite of no regulations and counter intuitive to minimal regulation. Technically speaking, it means slightly below over regulation. It then also states that it is the militia that is important to the defense of the state-- the arming and bearing added in last as a way to augment said militiaIn other words, militias need to be armed, and they need to be well regulated. That is, if you want to stick to the exact words of the amendment. You could also stick with Supreme Court readings that ignore portions of the amendment and emphasizes others. Also, on the tyranny thing, you can't have it both ways. If you are scared enough to need guns to stop it, then you don't feel safe. If you do feel safe, then why the hell would you want guns to stop something you don't think is coming? I wouldn't point a gun at a random guy on the street and say to him "don't take it personal, just being safe you know." You're either scared of something or you're not. Now, you can enjoy having guns and become so stubborn in a debate you're willing to bring up points you don't really believe in just to prove a point--that would be a very internet forum reader way of dealing with things. Is that more accurate to your stance? You should read the multiple wordings they considered before deciding on the last version. Your assumptions are wrong, as usual. Just reading what we actually have and showing why we vague it up so much. First part of the amendment. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, Where it is clear that the security of a free state is insured by a militia. Second part of the amendment. the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Once again, this phrase is in continuation of the first phrase, the first phrase being augmented by the 2nd phrase. That is literally what it is saying. It does not say that we need guns to protect against tyranny, it says we need a well regulated militia against tyranny, and it'd be cool if those militias had guns. So you're going to essentially ignore what I said and repost the same thing again? Just don't respond if you don't want to address what people actually say. It's that simple.
You said that the amendment went through a lot of edits. I'm showing you what the final edit says. You then link a scalia quote where he specifically ignores militia in the amendment. I point out that that was what I was saying in the quote you responded to.
What did I miss?
|
On May 21 2013 08:13 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2013 08:06 heliusx wrote:On May 21 2013 07:58 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 21 2013 07:48 kmillz wrote:On May 21 2013 07:43 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 21 2013 07:41 kmillz wrote:On May 21 2013 07:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 21 2013 07:33 heliusx wrote:On May 21 2013 07:19 Paljas wrote:On May 21 2013 06:13 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Considering the actions of the US government over the last two years that are coming to light, the answer to the question "Should people be allowed [by the government, obviously] to own and carry guns is an unequivocal yes, regardless of all other considerations.
The government is not your friend unless you agree with whoever is in charge of it.
The government is not here to help you unless you agree with whoever is in charge of it.
The government is not here to preserve or defend your freedom.
The government is here to ask you questions about your friends and your beliefs what you say when you pray.
The government is here to tail you and access your phone records without a warrant because you're a reporter or media organization reporting things the government wants kept secret.
The government is here to progressively restrict your access to guns.
Then, of course, it won't be only the criminals who have guns - the government will have plenty too.
Fuck the US government whether the Democrats or Republicans or anyone is in charge.
If you pooh-pooh the tyranny argument today you're an ignoramus or a knave. how about moving to canada? like, if you are really so mad about the government, what are you doing in the usa? To use your stellar logic of unending wisdom... why don't gun control advocates just move to Canada. oh wait that's completely retarded. If you have nothing productive to add just keep it to yourself, you have steered this thread into shit daily for a few weeks and frankly it's getting annoying. He's asking why would you stay in a country that you mis-trust so much that you need to hold on to guns in case of tyrannic rule. And you are further de-railing the thread with the same childish point, still waiting for your explanation of why you think there is anything unclear about "shall not be infringed" and what is concrete and detailed about "regulated militia". What are all of the specific details about this well regulated militia? How many people? How many guns? What guns should be in it? Obviously its concrete to you so what are the specifics? What could "shall not be infringed" possibly mean besides don't infringe? A militia is a group of people--otherwise it would say person. Regulated means regulations are enforced--tautologically speaking. In other words, people need to be regulated. Ok and that's all it says, it doesn't say HOW we regulate it: hence it is not concrete or specific. As far as shall not be infringed, do you think that is unclear? On May 21 2013 07:48 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 21 2013 07:39 heliusx wrote:On May 21 2013 07:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 21 2013 07:33 heliusx wrote:On May 21 2013 07:19 Paljas wrote:On May 21 2013 06:13 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Considering the actions of the US government over the last two years that are coming to light, the answer to the question "Should people be allowed [by the government, obviously] to own and carry guns is an unequivocal yes, regardless of all other considerations.
The government is not your friend unless you agree with whoever is in charge of it.
The government is not here to help you unless you agree with whoever is in charge of it.
The government is not here to preserve or defend your freedom.
The government is here to ask you questions about your friends and your beliefs what you say when you pray.
The government is here to tail you and access your phone records without a warrant because you're a reporter or media organization reporting things the government wants kept secret.
The government is here to progressively restrict your access to guns.
Then, of course, it won't be only the criminals who have guns - the government will have plenty too.
Fuck the US government whether the Democrats or Republicans or anyone is in charge.
If you pooh-pooh the tyranny argument today you're an ignoramus or a knave. how about moving to canada? like, if you are really so mad about the government, what are you doing in the usa? To use your stellar logic of unending wisdom... why don't gun control advocates just move to Canada. oh wait that's completely retarded. If you have nothing productive to add just keep it to yourself, you have steered this thread into shit daily for a few weeks and frankly it's getting annoying. He's asking why would you stay in a country that you mis-trust so much that you need to hold on to guns in case of tyrannic rule. I can read. I know what he's asking. The guy is flame baiting DEB in multiple threads and consistently steers threads into shit posting. He might be shit posting, but it's a very valid point. If you honestly believe you need guns to prevent your government from becoming tyrannical--why are you staying in a country that you believe is about to become tyrannical? Just from a logical standpoint. If the country is so dangerous that you need a gun on you to survive walking down the street? Why are you staying in that country? Logically speaking? I'd understand why some guy in a third world country can't emigrate--because he can't financially survive moving to a non-third world country. But that is not true for people in a first world country moving to a third/2nd world country. No it isn't a valid point. The United States is far safer than most countries from tyranny because of our Constitution. He never said the United States is about to become a tyranny, he said we need to preserve the 2nd amendment so it doesn't get to that point. It does say specifically "Well regulated" which is the opposite of no regulations and counter intuitive to minimal regulation. Technically speaking, it means slightly below over regulation. It then also states that it is the militia that is important to the defense of the state-- the arming and bearing added in last as a way to augment said militiaIn other words, militias need to be armed, and they need to be well regulated. That is, if you want to stick to the exact words of the amendment. You could also stick with Supreme Court readings that ignore portions of the amendment and emphasizes others. Also, on the tyranny thing, you can't have it both ways. If you are scared enough to need guns to stop it, then you don't feel safe. If you do feel safe, then why the hell would you want guns to stop something you don't think is coming? I wouldn't point a gun at a random guy on the street and say to him "don't take it personal, just being safe you know." You're either scared of something or you're not. Now, you can enjoy having guns and become so stubborn in a debate you're willing to bring up points you don't really believe in just to prove a point--that would be a very internet forum reader way of dealing with things. Is that more accurate to your stance? You should read the multiple wordings they considered before deciding on the last version. Your assumptions are wrong, as usual. Just reading what we actually have and showing why we vague it up so much. First part of the amendment. Where it is clear that the security of a free state is insured by a militia. Second part of the amendment. Once again, this phrase is in continuation of the first phrase, the first phrase being augmented by the 2nd phrase. That is literally what it is saying. It does not say that we need guns to protect against tyranny, it says we need a well regulated militia against tyranny, and it'd be cool if those militias had guns.
You are translating "shall not be infringed" to "it'd be cool if they had guns". Wow. Yeah that's totally what it could mean dude.
|
On May 21 2013 08:25 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2013 08:13 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 21 2013 08:06 heliusx wrote:On May 21 2013 07:58 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 21 2013 07:48 kmillz wrote:On May 21 2013 07:43 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 21 2013 07:41 kmillz wrote:On May 21 2013 07:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 21 2013 07:33 heliusx wrote:On May 21 2013 07:19 Paljas wrote:
[quote]
how about moving to canada?
like, if you are really so mad about the government, what are you doing in the usa? To use your stellar logic of unending wisdom... why don't gun control advocates just move to Canada. oh wait that's completely retarded. If you have nothing productive to add just keep it to yourself, you have steered this thread into shit daily for a few weeks and frankly it's getting annoying. He's asking why would you stay in a country that you mis-trust so much that you need to hold on to guns in case of tyrannic rule. And you are further de-railing the thread with the same childish point, still waiting for your explanation of why you think there is anything unclear about "shall not be infringed" and what is concrete and detailed about "regulated militia". What are all of the specific details about this well regulated militia? How many people? How many guns? What guns should be in it? Obviously its concrete to you so what are the specifics? What could "shall not be infringed" possibly mean besides don't infringe? A militia is a group of people--otherwise it would say person. Regulated means regulations are enforced--tautologically speaking. In other words, people need to be regulated. Ok and that's all it says, it doesn't say HOW we regulate it: hence it is not concrete or specific. As far as shall not be infringed, do you think that is unclear? On May 21 2013 07:48 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 21 2013 07:39 heliusx wrote:On May 21 2013 07:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 21 2013 07:33 heliusx wrote:On May 21 2013 07:19 Paljas wrote:
[quote]
how about moving to canada?
like, if you are really so mad about the government, what are you doing in the usa? To use your stellar logic of unending wisdom... why don't gun control advocates just move to Canada. oh wait that's completely retarded. If you have nothing productive to add just keep it to yourself, you have steered this thread into shit daily for a few weeks and frankly it's getting annoying. He's asking why would you stay in a country that you mis-trust so much that you need to hold on to guns in case of tyrannic rule. I can read. I know what he's asking. The guy is flame baiting DEB in multiple threads and consistently steers threads into shit posting. He might be shit posting, but it's a very valid point. If you honestly believe you need guns to prevent your government from becoming tyrannical--why are you staying in a country that you believe is about to become tyrannical? Just from a logical standpoint. If the country is so dangerous that you need a gun on you to survive walking down the street? Why are you staying in that country? Logically speaking? I'd understand why some guy in a third world country can't emigrate--because he can't financially survive moving to a non-third world country. But that is not true for people in a first world country moving to a third/2nd world country. No it isn't a valid point. The United States is far safer than most countries from tyranny because of our Constitution. He never said the United States is about to become a tyranny, he said we need to preserve the 2nd amendment so it doesn't get to that point. It does say specifically "Well regulated" which is the opposite of no regulations and counter intuitive to minimal regulation. Technically speaking, it means slightly below over regulation. It then also states that it is the militia that is important to the defense of the state-- the arming and bearing added in last as a way to augment said militiaIn other words, militias need to be armed, and they need to be well regulated. That is, if you want to stick to the exact words of the amendment. You could also stick with Supreme Court readings that ignore portions of the amendment and emphasizes others. Also, on the tyranny thing, you can't have it both ways. If you are scared enough to need guns to stop it, then you don't feel safe. If you do feel safe, then why the hell would you want guns to stop something you don't think is coming? I wouldn't point a gun at a random guy on the street and say to him "don't take it personal, just being safe you know." You're either scared of something or you're not. Now, you can enjoy having guns and become so stubborn in a debate you're willing to bring up points you don't really believe in just to prove a point--that would be a very internet forum reader way of dealing with things. Is that more accurate to your stance? You should read the multiple wordings they considered before deciding on the last version. Your assumptions are wrong, as usual. Just reading what we actually have and showing why we vague it up so much. First part of the amendment. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, Where it is clear that the security of a free state is insured by a militia. Second part of the amendment. the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Once again, this phrase is in continuation of the first phrase, the first phrase being augmented by the 2nd phrase. That is literally what it is saying. It does not say that we need guns to protect against tyranny, it says we need a well regulated militia against tyranny, and it'd be cool if those militias had guns. You are translating "shall not be infringed" to "it'd be cool if they had guns". Wow. Yeah that's totally what it could mean dude.
I'm actually translating it to mean the militia can have guns, in order for that well regulated militia to defend the free state, which only the militia can do. But thanks for ignoring the first part 
|
On May 21 2013 08:25 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2013 08:13 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 21 2013 08:06 heliusx wrote:On May 21 2013 07:58 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 21 2013 07:48 kmillz wrote:On May 21 2013 07:43 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 21 2013 07:41 kmillz wrote:On May 21 2013 07:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 21 2013 07:33 heliusx wrote:On May 21 2013 07:19 Paljas wrote:
[quote]
how about moving to canada?
like, if you are really so mad about the government, what are you doing in the usa? To use your stellar logic of unending wisdom... why don't gun control advocates just move to Canada. oh wait that's completely retarded. If you have nothing productive to add just keep it to yourself, you have steered this thread into shit daily for a few weeks and frankly it's getting annoying. He's asking why would you stay in a country that you mis-trust so much that you need to hold on to guns in case of tyrannic rule. And you are further de-railing the thread with the same childish point, still waiting for your explanation of why you think there is anything unclear about "shall not be infringed" and what is concrete and detailed about "regulated militia". What are all of the specific details about this well regulated militia? How many people? How many guns? What guns should be in it? Obviously its concrete to you so what are the specifics? What could "shall not be infringed" possibly mean besides don't infringe? A militia is a group of people--otherwise it would say person. Regulated means regulations are enforced--tautologically speaking. In other words, people need to be regulated. Ok and that's all it says, it doesn't say HOW we regulate it: hence it is not concrete or specific. As far as shall not be infringed, do you think that is unclear? On May 21 2013 07:48 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 21 2013 07:39 heliusx wrote:On May 21 2013 07:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 21 2013 07:33 heliusx wrote:On May 21 2013 07:19 Paljas wrote:
[quote]
how about moving to canada?
like, if you are really so mad about the government, what are you doing in the usa? To use your stellar logic of unending wisdom... why don't gun control advocates just move to Canada. oh wait that's completely retarded. If you have nothing productive to add just keep it to yourself, you have steered this thread into shit daily for a few weeks and frankly it's getting annoying. He's asking why would you stay in a country that you mis-trust so much that you need to hold on to guns in case of tyrannic rule. I can read. I know what he's asking. The guy is flame baiting DEB in multiple threads and consistently steers threads into shit posting. He might be shit posting, but it's a very valid point. If you honestly believe you need guns to prevent your government from becoming tyrannical--why are you staying in a country that you believe is about to become tyrannical? Just from a logical standpoint. If the country is so dangerous that you need a gun on you to survive walking down the street? Why are you staying in that country? Logically speaking? I'd understand why some guy in a third world country can't emigrate--because he can't financially survive moving to a non-third world country. But that is not true for people in a first world country moving to a third/2nd world country. No it isn't a valid point. The United States is far safer than most countries from tyranny because of our Constitution. He never said the United States is about to become a tyranny, he said we need to preserve the 2nd amendment so it doesn't get to that point. It does say specifically "Well regulated" which is the opposite of no regulations and counter intuitive to minimal regulation. Technically speaking, it means slightly below over regulation. It then also states that it is the militia that is important to the defense of the state-- the arming and bearing added in last as a way to augment said militiaIn other words, militias need to be armed, and they need to be well regulated. That is, if you want to stick to the exact words of the amendment. You could also stick with Supreme Court readings that ignore portions of the amendment and emphasizes others. Also, on the tyranny thing, you can't have it both ways. If you are scared enough to need guns to stop it, then you don't feel safe. If you do feel safe, then why the hell would you want guns to stop something you don't think is coming? I wouldn't point a gun at a random guy on the street and say to him "don't take it personal, just being safe you know." You're either scared of something or you're not. Now, you can enjoy having guns and become so stubborn in a debate you're willing to bring up points you don't really believe in just to prove a point--that would be a very internet forum reader way of dealing with things. Is that more accurate to your stance? You should read the multiple wordings they considered before deciding on the last version. Your assumptions are wrong, as usual. Just reading what we actually have and showing why we vague it up so much. First part of the amendment. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, Where it is clear that the security of a free state is insured by a militia. Second part of the amendment. the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Once again, this phrase is in continuation of the first phrase, the first phrase being augmented by the 2nd phrase. That is literally what it is saying. It does not say that we need guns to protect against tyranny, it says we need a well regulated militia against tyranny, and it'd be cool if those militias had guns. You are translating "shall not be infringed" to "it'd be cool if they had guns". Wow. Yeah that's totally what it could mean dude.
It's pointless this guy is clearly more educated in constitutional law and English grammar of the time than SCOTUS. I pointed out why his assumptions are wrong, which is easy to see when you look at the multiple forms that were considered and he just ignores that and goes right back to his interpretation.
|
I don't understand why you are just saying the same thing in different words to try to show how shall not be infringed can be vague. It's quite clear.
It's also pretty hypocritical of you to say "lol you want to make only some parts vague and others parts clear" when that is exactly what you are doing.
|
On May 21 2013 08:21 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2013 08:14 Millitron wrote:On May 21 2013 08:05 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 21 2013 07:52 Millitron wrote:On May 21 2013 07:48 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 21 2013 07:39 heliusx wrote:On May 21 2013 07:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 21 2013 07:33 heliusx wrote:On May 21 2013 07:19 Paljas wrote:On May 21 2013 06:13 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Considering the actions of the US government over the last two years that are coming to light, the answer to the question "Should people be allowed [by the government, obviously] to own and carry guns is an unequivocal yes, regardless of all other considerations.
The government is not your friend unless you agree with whoever is in charge of it.
The government is not here to help you unless you agree with whoever is in charge of it.
The government is not here to preserve or defend your freedom.
The government is here to ask you questions about your friends and your beliefs what you say when you pray.
The government is here to tail you and access your phone records without a warrant because you're a reporter or media organization reporting things the government wants kept secret.
The government is here to progressively restrict your access to guns.
Then, of course, it won't be only the criminals who have guns - the government will have plenty too.
Fuck the US government whether the Democrats or Republicans or anyone is in charge.
If you pooh-pooh the tyranny argument today you're an ignoramus or a knave. how about moving to canada? like, if you are really so mad about the government, what are you doing in the usa? To use your stellar logic of unending wisdom... why don't gun control advocates just move to Canada. oh wait that's completely retarded. If you have nothing productive to add just keep it to yourself, you have steered this thread into shit daily for a few weeks and frankly it's getting annoying. He's asking why would you stay in a country that you mis-trust so much that you need to hold on to guns in case of tyrannic rule. I can read. I know what he's asking. The guy is flame baiting DEB in multiple threads and consistently steers threads into shit posting. He might be shit posting, but it's a very valid point. If you honestly believe you need guns to prevent your government from becoming tyrannical-- why are you staying in a country that you believe is about to become tyrannical? Just from a logical standpoint. If the country is so dangerous that you need a gun on you to survive walking down the street? Why are you staying in that country? Logically speaking? I'd understand why some guy in a third world country can't emigrate--because he can't financially survive moving to a non-third world country. But that is not true for people in a first world country moving to a third/2nd world country. See, this is absurd. We don't believe the country is going to fall to tyranny (most of us don't, Alex Jones is a pretty small minority), but we still like having the ability to do something about it in the event that it happens. Do you think you're going to be in a car wreck? No? Then why do you prefer to have airbags? Edit: I'm not arguing about carry rights, just possession rights. I am perfectly OK with the government regulating publicly carrying guns. I would prefer if they didn't, but I'm not going to say they have no right to. Because the only part of gun-rights I really care about is the defense against tyranny, and you can do that with or without open carry rights. If its gotten bad enough that you're going to shoot a tyrant's thugs, you probably don't care that carrying that gun is illegal. If this was reddit I'd plus one that sentence lone for awesomeness. Although anecdotal, I do believe I can be in a car wreck at anytime and hence why I keep my eyes on the road and both hands on the wheel. But that's not your point--your point is that too often we publicly treat cars as safer objects than they statistically are and I definitely agree with that. But I don't like driving that much as opposed to most americans so I never understood that cultural concept--although I do think its dumb. I do agree with you on possession rights. Less for tyranny and more for property rights. I'd be as upset as a gun ban as I would be on a car ban. Although a car ban leading to increased dependability on public transit and decreased dependency on oil companies would improve the US both environmentally and health wise (yay more walking!)--but I digress. Right to own the stuff you own is a big reason my family moved to the US and its something I will defend till forever. I'm just not someone who equates regulations with bans. See, it depends on the regulations. Like, high-capacity magazine bans, "Assault Weapon" bans, the NFA, all of them infringe on property rights. You simply cannot own those things, for no good reason. The NFA is the only one that ever made any sense, it tried to prevent the Mafia from getting more machine guns, but by the time it got passed, they had mostly stopped using them anyways. I could get behind background checks if they didn't have to go through an FFL, and if they only returned a yes/no answer, so as to not violate the purchaser's privacy. I do believe we could, in theory, end up with a tyranny at any time. I highly, HIGHLY doubt we will get one any time soon, or even in the next century. But things can change quickly; Hitler did take over in only a decade or so, as did Mao and Lenin. I'd rather be over-prepared than under-prepared. I, more or less, agree with the first part of your post. In regards to your last paragraph. True enough. It takes 1 term for charisma to move a people into action. And it would suck if that movement screwed you over. Most of the Nazi and Communist "dictatorships" all started out as a people's revolution against the corrupt _______. They never really were some guy becoming a dictator more so than a social movement in the wrong direction finding out too late when enough social rights had been stripped. Dictators tap a fear in a people and then allow those people's fears to wreck the country for him. But... In defense of Lenin--USSR was pretty cool for most of his time there. It was post Lenin russia that really hit the fan. Which is what you get for hiring trained assassins in your cabinet...
That's part of the reason I fight so hard for gun-rights. The 2nd Amendment plays a big role in protecting the other 26 amendments.
|
On May 21 2013 08:30 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2013 08:25 kmillz wrote:On May 21 2013 08:13 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 21 2013 08:06 heliusx wrote:On May 21 2013 07:58 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 21 2013 07:48 kmillz wrote:On May 21 2013 07:43 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 21 2013 07:41 kmillz wrote:On May 21 2013 07:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 21 2013 07:33 heliusx wrote:
[quote]
To use your stellar logic of unending wisdom... why don't gun control advocates just move to Canada. oh wait that's completely retarded. If you have nothing productive to add just keep it to yourself, you have steered this thread into shit daily for a few weeks and frankly it's getting annoying. He's asking why would you stay in a country that you mis-trust so much that you need to hold on to guns in case of tyrannic rule. And you are further de-railing the thread with the same childish point, still waiting for your explanation of why you think there is anything unclear about "shall not be infringed" and what is concrete and detailed about "regulated militia". What are all of the specific details about this well regulated militia? How many people? How many guns? What guns should be in it? Obviously its concrete to you so what are the specifics? What could "shall not be infringed" possibly mean besides don't infringe? A militia is a group of people--otherwise it would say person. Regulated means regulations are enforced--tautologically speaking. In other words, people need to be regulated. Ok and that's all it says, it doesn't say HOW we regulate it: hence it is not concrete or specific. As far as shall not be infringed, do you think that is unclear? On May 21 2013 07:48 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 21 2013 07:39 heliusx wrote:On May 21 2013 07:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 21 2013 07:33 heliusx wrote:
[quote]
To use your stellar logic of unending wisdom... why don't gun control advocates just move to Canada. oh wait that's completely retarded. If you have nothing productive to add just keep it to yourself, you have steered this thread into shit daily for a few weeks and frankly it's getting annoying. He's asking why would you stay in a country that you mis-trust so much that you need to hold on to guns in case of tyrannic rule. I can read. I know what he's asking. The guy is flame baiting DEB in multiple threads and consistently steers threads into shit posting. He might be shit posting, but it's a very valid point. If you honestly believe you need guns to prevent your government from becoming tyrannical--why are you staying in a country that you believe is about to become tyrannical? Just from a logical standpoint. If the country is so dangerous that you need a gun on you to survive walking down the street? Why are you staying in that country? Logically speaking? I'd understand why some guy in a third world country can't emigrate--because he can't financially survive moving to a non-third world country. But that is not true for people in a first world country moving to a third/2nd world country. No it isn't a valid point. The United States is far safer than most countries from tyranny because of our Constitution. He never said the United States is about to become a tyranny, he said we need to preserve the 2nd amendment so it doesn't get to that point. It does say specifically "Well regulated" which is the opposite of no regulations and counter intuitive to minimal regulation. Technically speaking, it means slightly below over regulation. It then also states that it is the militia that is important to the defense of the state-- the arming and bearing added in last as a way to augment said militiaIn other words, militias need to be armed, and they need to be well regulated. That is, if you want to stick to the exact words of the amendment. You could also stick with Supreme Court readings that ignore portions of the amendment and emphasizes others. Also, on the tyranny thing, you can't have it both ways. If you are scared enough to need guns to stop it, then you don't feel safe. If you do feel safe, then why the hell would you want guns to stop something you don't think is coming? I wouldn't point a gun at a random guy on the street and say to him "don't take it personal, just being safe you know." You're either scared of something or you're not. Now, you can enjoy having guns and become so stubborn in a debate you're willing to bring up points you don't really believe in just to prove a point--that would be a very internet forum reader way of dealing with things. Is that more accurate to your stance? You should read the multiple wordings they considered before deciding on the last version. Your assumptions are wrong, as usual. Just reading what we actually have and showing why we vague it up so much. First part of the amendment. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, Where it is clear that the security of a free state is insured by a militia. Second part of the amendment. the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Once again, this phrase is in continuation of the first phrase, the first phrase being augmented by the 2nd phrase. That is literally what it is saying. It does not say that we need guns to protect against tyranny, it says we need a well regulated militia against tyranny, and it'd be cool if those militias had guns. You are translating "shall not be infringed" to "it'd be cool if they had guns". Wow. Yeah that's totally what it could mean dude. It's pointless this guy is clearly more educated in constitutional law and English grammar of the time than SCOTUS. I pointed out why his assumptions are wrong, which is easy to see when you look at the multiple forms that were considered and he just ignores that and goes right back to his interpretation.
Being that I said "You could also stick with Supreme Court readings that ignore portions of the amendment and emphasizes others."
And the supreme court most recently said "not just the militia" in their recent ruling of the second amendment. I am not inaccurate at all in what I'm saying. If you want to stick to the actual amendment and follow it word for word--then you can't ignore the militia and you can't ignore well regulated. However, SCOTUS chooses to do it because they're not about reading it word for word but on vague-ing it up and trying to read what it could mean outside of the word for word meanings.
Just look at the sentence, "well regulated militia, being necessary" and then having Scalia say "not just militia" when the amendment literally says that the militia is what is necessary.
|
On May 21 2013 08:32 kmillz wrote:
I don't understand why you are just saying the same thing in different words to try to show how shall not be infringed can be vague. It's quite clear.
It's also pretty hypocritical of you to say "lol you want to make only some parts vague and others parts clear" when that is exactly what you are doing.
I'm not showing that infringe is not clear. I'm literally showing that bearing of arms is necessary for a regulated militia--regulated being the key word. I'm showing that if you stick word for word you would give guns to the militia and those guns need to be heavily regulated. That is not making it vague that is reading the sentence literally.
|
On May 21 2013 08:38 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2013 08:32 kmillz wrote:
I don't understand why you are just saying the same thing in different words to try to show how shall not be infringed can be vague. It's quite clear.
It's also pretty hypocritical of you to say "lol you want to make only some parts vague and others parts clear" when that is exactly what you are doing. I'm not showing that infringe is not clear. I'm literally showing that bearing of arms is necessary for a regulated militia--regulated being the key word. I'm showing that if you stick word for word you would give guns to the militia and those guns need to be heavily regulated. That is not making it vague that is reading the sentence literally.
Well you just said heavily regulated, what if I interpreted it lightly regulated? Or moderately? Or fairly regulated?
I get it now, you weren't saying that shall not be infringed was unclear, you were just pointing out that you can't say one part is unclear while the other isn't. The problem is the way it was written was unclear in one part and clear in another if you read it "literally".
|
On May 21 2013 08:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2013 08:30 heliusx wrote:On May 21 2013 08:25 kmillz wrote:On May 21 2013 08:13 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 21 2013 08:06 heliusx wrote:On May 21 2013 07:58 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 21 2013 07:48 kmillz wrote:On May 21 2013 07:43 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 21 2013 07:41 kmillz wrote:On May 21 2013 07:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
He's asking why would you stay in a country that you mis-trust so much that you need to hold on to guns in case of tyrannic rule. And you are further de-railing the thread with the same childish point, still waiting for your explanation of why you think there is anything unclear about "shall not be infringed" and what is concrete and detailed about "regulated militia". What are all of the specific details about this well regulated militia? How many people? How many guns? What guns should be in it? Obviously its concrete to you so what are the specifics? What could "shall not be infringed" possibly mean besides don't infringe? A militia is a group of people--otherwise it would say person. Regulated means regulations are enforced--tautologically speaking. In other words, people need to be regulated. Ok and that's all it says, it doesn't say HOW we regulate it: hence it is not concrete or specific. As far as shall not be infringed, do you think that is unclear? On May 21 2013 07:48 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 21 2013 07:39 heliusx wrote:On May 21 2013 07:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
He's asking why would you stay in a country that you mis-trust so much that you need to hold on to guns in case of tyrannic rule. I can read. I know what he's asking. The guy is flame baiting DEB in multiple threads and consistently steers threads into shit posting. He might be shit posting, but it's a very valid point. If you honestly believe you need guns to prevent your government from becoming tyrannical--why are you staying in a country that you believe is about to become tyrannical? Just from a logical standpoint. If the country is so dangerous that you need a gun on you to survive walking down the street? Why are you staying in that country? Logically speaking? I'd understand why some guy in a third world country can't emigrate--because he can't financially survive moving to a non-third world country. But that is not true for people in a first world country moving to a third/2nd world country. No it isn't a valid point. The United States is far safer than most countries from tyranny because of our Constitution. He never said the United States is about to become a tyranny, he said we need to preserve the 2nd amendment so it doesn't get to that point. It does say specifically "Well regulated" which is the opposite of no regulations and counter intuitive to minimal regulation. Technically speaking, it means slightly below over regulation. It then also states that it is the militia that is important to the defense of the state-- the arming and bearing added in last as a way to augment said militiaIn other words, militias need to be armed, and they need to be well regulated. That is, if you want to stick to the exact words of the amendment. You could also stick with Supreme Court readings that ignore portions of the amendment and emphasizes others. Also, on the tyranny thing, you can't have it both ways. If you are scared enough to need guns to stop it, then you don't feel safe. If you do feel safe, then why the hell would you want guns to stop something you don't think is coming? I wouldn't point a gun at a random guy on the street and say to him "don't take it personal, just being safe you know." You're either scared of something or you're not. Now, you can enjoy having guns and become so stubborn in a debate you're willing to bring up points you don't really believe in just to prove a point--that would be a very internet forum reader way of dealing with things. Is that more accurate to your stance? You should read the multiple wordings they considered before deciding on the last version. Your assumptions are wrong, as usual. Just reading what we actually have and showing why we vague it up so much. First part of the amendment. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, Where it is clear that the security of a free state is insured by a militia. Second part of the amendment. the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Once again, this phrase is in continuation of the first phrase, the first phrase being augmented by the 2nd phrase. That is literally what it is saying. It does not say that we need guns to protect against tyranny, it says we need a well regulated militia against tyranny, and it'd be cool if those militias had guns. You are translating "shall not be infringed" to "it'd be cool if they had guns". Wow. Yeah that's totally what it could mean dude. It's pointless this guy is clearly more educated in constitutional law and English grammar of the time than SCOTUS. I pointed out why his assumptions are wrong, which is easy to see when you look at the multiple forms that were considered and he just ignores that and goes right back to his interpretation. Being that I said "You could also stick with Supreme Court readings that ignore portions of the amendment and emphasizes others." And the supreme court most recently said "not just the militia" in their recent ruling of the second amendment. I am not inaccurate at all in what I'm saying. If you want to stick to the actual amendment and follow it word for word--then you can't ignore the militia and you can't ignore well regulated. However, SCOTUS chooses to do it because they're not about reading it word for word but on vague-ing it up and trying to read what it could mean outside of the word for word meanings. Just look at the sentence, "well regulated militia, being necessary" and then having Scalia say "not just militia" when the amendment literally says that the militia is what is necessary.
To be fair, it doesn't say ONLY the militia is necessary.
|
On May 21 2013 08:41 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2013 08:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 21 2013 08:30 heliusx wrote:On May 21 2013 08:25 kmillz wrote:On May 21 2013 08:13 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 21 2013 08:06 heliusx wrote:On May 21 2013 07:58 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 21 2013 07:48 kmillz wrote:On May 21 2013 07:43 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 21 2013 07:41 kmillz wrote:
[quote]
And you are further de-railing the thread with the same childish point, still waiting for your explanation of why you think there is anything unclear about "shall not be infringed" and what is concrete and detailed about "regulated militia". What are all of the specific details about this well regulated militia? How many people? How many guns? What guns should be in it? Obviously its concrete to you so what are the specifics? What could "shall not be infringed" possibly mean besides don't infringe? A militia is a group of people--otherwise it would say person. Regulated means regulations are enforced--tautologically speaking. In other words, people need to be regulated. Ok and that's all it says, it doesn't say HOW we regulate it: hence it is not concrete or specific. As far as shall not be infringed, do you think that is unclear? On May 21 2013 07:48 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 21 2013 07:39 heliusx wrote:
[quote]
I can read. I know what he's asking. The guy is flame baiting DEB in multiple threads and consistently steers threads into shit posting. He might be shit posting, but it's a very valid point. If you honestly believe you need guns to prevent your government from becoming tyrannical--why are you staying in a country that you believe is about to become tyrannical? Just from a logical standpoint. If the country is so dangerous that you need a gun on you to survive walking down the street? Why are you staying in that country? Logically speaking? I'd understand why some guy in a third world country can't emigrate--because he can't financially survive moving to a non-third world country. But that is not true for people in a first world country moving to a third/2nd world country. No it isn't a valid point. The United States is far safer than most countries from tyranny because of our Constitution. He never said the United States is about to become a tyranny, he said we need to preserve the 2nd amendment so it doesn't get to that point. It does say specifically "Well regulated" which is the opposite of no regulations and counter intuitive to minimal regulation. Technically speaking, it means slightly below over regulation. It then also states that it is the militia that is important to the defense of the state-- the arming and bearing added in last as a way to augment said militiaIn other words, militias need to be armed, and they need to be well regulated. That is, if you want to stick to the exact words of the amendment. You could also stick with Supreme Court readings that ignore portions of the amendment and emphasizes others. Also, on the tyranny thing, you can't have it both ways. If you are scared enough to need guns to stop it, then you don't feel safe. If you do feel safe, then why the hell would you want guns to stop something you don't think is coming? I wouldn't point a gun at a random guy on the street and say to him "don't take it personal, just being safe you know." You're either scared of something or you're not. Now, you can enjoy having guns and become so stubborn in a debate you're willing to bring up points you don't really believe in just to prove a point--that would be a very internet forum reader way of dealing with things. Is that more accurate to your stance? You should read the multiple wordings they considered before deciding on the last version. Your assumptions are wrong, as usual. Just reading what we actually have and showing why we vague it up so much. First part of the amendment. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, Where it is clear that the security of a free state is insured by a militia. Second part of the amendment. the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Once again, this phrase is in continuation of the first phrase, the first phrase being augmented by the 2nd phrase. That is literally what it is saying. It does not say that we need guns to protect against tyranny, it says we need a well regulated militia against tyranny, and it'd be cool if those militias had guns. You are translating "shall not be infringed" to "it'd be cool if they had guns". Wow. Yeah that's totally what it could mean dude. It's pointless this guy is clearly more educated in constitutional law and English grammar of the time than SCOTUS. I pointed out why his assumptions are wrong, which is easy to see when you look at the multiple forms that were considered and he just ignores that and goes right back to his interpretation. Being that I said "You could also stick with Supreme Court readings that ignore portions of the amendment and emphasizes others." And the supreme court most recently said "not just the militia" in their recent ruling of the second amendment. I am not inaccurate at all in what I'm saying. If you want to stick to the actual amendment and follow it word for word--then you can't ignore the militia and you can't ignore well regulated. However, SCOTUS chooses to do it because they're not about reading it word for word but on vague-ing it up and trying to read what it could mean outside of the word for word meanings. Just look at the sentence, "well regulated militia, being necessary" and then having Scalia say "not just militia" when the amendment literally says that the militia is what is necessary. To be fair, it doesn't say ONLY the militia is necessary.
You're right, I'm mixing it up with one of the federalist papers.
But either or, we vague things up for a reason. In order for it to be relevant.
|
On May 21 2013 08:40 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2013 08:38 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 21 2013 08:32 kmillz wrote:
I don't understand why you are just saying the same thing in different words to try to show how shall not be infringed can be vague. It's quite clear.
It's also pretty hypocritical of you to say "lol you want to make only some parts vague and others parts clear" when that is exactly what you are doing. I'm not showing that infringe is not clear. I'm literally showing that bearing of arms is necessary for a regulated militia--regulated being the key word. I'm showing that if you stick word for word you would give guns to the militia and those guns need to be heavily regulated. That is not making it vague that is reading the sentence literally. Well you just said heavily regulated, what if I interpreted it lightly regulated? Or moderately? Or fairly regulated? I get it now, you weren't saying that shall not be infringed was unclear, you were just pointing out that you can't say one part is unclear while the other isn't. The problem is the way it was written was unclear in one part and clear in another if you read it "literally".
Because well regulated has a very specific meaning that is not "light" or "moderate."
"They taught you well" doesn't mean "they didn't teach you much" it means you that you were taught fully to the full extent of what is available. Well made food does not mean crappy food--it means very well made.
|
On May 21 2013 08:43 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2013 08:41 Millitron wrote:On May 21 2013 08:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 21 2013 08:30 heliusx wrote:On May 21 2013 08:25 kmillz wrote:On May 21 2013 08:13 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 21 2013 08:06 heliusx wrote:On May 21 2013 07:58 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 21 2013 07:48 kmillz wrote:On May 21 2013 07:43 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
A militia is a group of people--otherwise it would say person.
Regulated means regulations are enforced--tautologically speaking.
In other words, people need to be regulated. Ok and that's all it says, it doesn't say HOW we regulate it: hence it is not concrete or specific. As far as shall not be infringed, do you think that is unclear? On May 21 2013 07:48 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
He might be shit posting, but it's a very valid point.
If you honestly believe you need guns to prevent your government from becoming tyrannical--why are you staying in a country that you believe is about to become tyrannical? Just from a logical standpoint. If the country is so dangerous that you need a gun on you to survive walking down the street? Why are you staying in that country? Logically speaking?
I'd understand why some guy in a third world country can't emigrate--because he can't financially survive moving to a non-third world country. But that is not true for people in a first world country moving to a third/2nd world country. No it isn't a valid point. The United States is far safer than most countries from tyranny because of our Constitution. He never said the United States is about to become a tyranny, he said we need to preserve the 2nd amendment so it doesn't get to that point. It does say specifically "Well regulated" which is the opposite of no regulations and counter intuitive to minimal regulation. Technically speaking, it means slightly below over regulation. It then also states that it is the militia that is important to the defense of the state-- the arming and bearing added in last as a way to augment said militiaIn other words, militias need to be armed, and they need to be well regulated. That is, if you want to stick to the exact words of the amendment. You could also stick with Supreme Court readings that ignore portions of the amendment and emphasizes others. Also, on the tyranny thing, you can't have it both ways. If you are scared enough to need guns to stop it, then you don't feel safe. If you do feel safe, then why the hell would you want guns to stop something you don't think is coming? I wouldn't point a gun at a random guy on the street and say to him "don't take it personal, just being safe you know." You're either scared of something or you're not. Now, you can enjoy having guns and become so stubborn in a debate you're willing to bring up points you don't really believe in just to prove a point--that would be a very internet forum reader way of dealing with things. Is that more accurate to your stance? You should read the multiple wordings they considered before deciding on the last version. Your assumptions are wrong, as usual. Just reading what we actually have and showing why we vague it up so much. First part of the amendment. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, Where it is clear that the security of a free state is insured by a militia. Second part of the amendment. the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Once again, this phrase is in continuation of the first phrase, the first phrase being augmented by the 2nd phrase. That is literally what it is saying. It does not say that we need guns to protect against tyranny, it says we need a well regulated militia against tyranny, and it'd be cool if those militias had guns. You are translating "shall not be infringed" to "it'd be cool if they had guns". Wow. Yeah that's totally what it could mean dude. It's pointless this guy is clearly more educated in constitutional law and English grammar of the time than SCOTUS. I pointed out why his assumptions are wrong, which is easy to see when you look at the multiple forms that were considered and he just ignores that and goes right back to his interpretation. Being that I said "You could also stick with Supreme Court readings that ignore portions of the amendment and emphasizes others." And the supreme court most recently said "not just the militia" in their recent ruling of the second amendment. I am not inaccurate at all in what I'm saying. If you want to stick to the actual amendment and follow it word for word--then you can't ignore the militia and you can't ignore well regulated. However, SCOTUS chooses to do it because they're not about reading it word for word but on vague-ing it up and trying to read what it could mean outside of the word for word meanings. Just look at the sentence, "well regulated militia, being necessary" and then having Scalia say "not just militia" when the amendment literally says that the militia is what is necessary. To be fair, it doesn't say ONLY the militia is necessary. You're right, I'm mixing it up with one of the federalist papers. But either or, we vague things up for a reason. In order for it to be relevant.
I'm not trying to vague anything up, I prefer for things to be clear. I think a fair interpretation of "well-regulated" to mean "enough regulation to ensure a fair balance between safety of the people and security of the society"
On May 21 2013 08:44 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2013 08:40 kmillz wrote:On May 21 2013 08:38 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 21 2013 08:32 kmillz wrote:
I don't understand why you are just saying the same thing in different words to try to show how shall not be infringed can be vague. It's quite clear.
It's also pretty hypocritical of you to say "lol you want to make only some parts vague and others parts clear" when that is exactly what you are doing. I'm not showing that infringe is not clear. I'm literally showing that bearing of arms is necessary for a regulated militia--regulated being the key word. I'm showing that if you stick word for word you would give guns to the militia and those guns need to be heavily regulated. That is not making it vague that is reading the sentence literally. Well you just said heavily regulated, what if I interpreted it lightly regulated? Or moderately? Or fairly regulated? I get it now, you weren't saying that shall not be infringed was unclear, you were just pointing out that you can't say one part is unclear while the other isn't. The problem is the way it was written was unclear in one part and clear in another if you read it "literally". Because well regulated has a very specific meaning that is not "light" or "moderate." "They taught you well" doesn't mean "they didn't teach you much" it means you that you were taught fully to the full extent of what is available. Well made food does not mean crappy food--it means very well made.
Lol. Fair enough, but even heavily regulated could be up for debate. Some argue that we are already heavily regulated. Some argue we aren't regulated enough. It just depends on your perspective.
|
On May 21 2013 08:44 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2013 08:40 kmillz wrote:On May 21 2013 08:38 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 21 2013 08:32 kmillz wrote:
I don't understand why you are just saying the same thing in different words to try to show how shall not be infringed can be vague. It's quite clear.
It's also pretty hypocritical of you to say "lol you want to make only some parts vague and others parts clear" when that is exactly what you are doing. I'm not showing that infringe is not clear. I'm literally showing that bearing of arms is necessary for a regulated militia--regulated being the key word. I'm showing that if you stick word for word you would give guns to the militia and those guns need to be heavily regulated. That is not making it vague that is reading the sentence literally. Well you just said heavily regulated, what if I interpreted it lightly regulated? Or moderately? Or fairly regulated? I get it now, you weren't saying that shall not be infringed was unclear, you were just pointing out that you can't say one part is unclear while the other isn't. The problem is the way it was written was unclear in one part and clear in another if you read it "literally". Because well regulated has a very specific meaning that is not "light" or "moderate." "They taught you well" doesn't mean "they didn't teach you much" it means you that you were taught fully to the full extent of what is available. Well made food does not mean crappy food--it means very well made.
But it still comes down to individual interpretation. The drafters didn't really explain what they meant by "Well". I suspect it was meant to mean "properly", but then you run into the same problem. Who decides what's "proper"?
|
On May 21 2013 08:46 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2013 08:43 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 21 2013 08:41 Millitron wrote:On May 21 2013 08:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 21 2013 08:30 heliusx wrote:On May 21 2013 08:25 kmillz wrote:On May 21 2013 08:13 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 21 2013 08:06 heliusx wrote:On May 21 2013 07:58 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 21 2013 07:48 kmillz wrote:
[quote]
Ok and that's all it says, it doesn't say HOW we regulate it: hence it is not concrete or specific.
As far as shall not be infringed, do you think that is unclear?
[quote]
No it isn't a valid point. The United States is far safer than most countries from tyranny because of our Constitution. He never said the United States is about to become a tyranny, he said we need to preserve the 2nd amendment so it doesn't get to that point. It does say specifically "Well regulated" which is the opposite of no regulations and counter intuitive to minimal regulation. Technically speaking, it means slightly below over regulation. It then also states that it is the militia that is important to the defense of the state-- the arming and bearing added in last as a way to augment said militiaIn other words, militias need to be armed, and they need to be well regulated. That is, if you want to stick to the exact words of the amendment. You could also stick with Supreme Court readings that ignore portions of the amendment and emphasizes others. Also, on the tyranny thing, you can't have it both ways. If you are scared enough to need guns to stop it, then you don't feel safe. If you do feel safe, then why the hell would you want guns to stop something you don't think is coming? I wouldn't point a gun at a random guy on the street and say to him "don't take it personal, just being safe you know." You're either scared of something or you're not. Now, you can enjoy having guns and become so stubborn in a debate you're willing to bring up points you don't really believe in just to prove a point--that would be a very internet forum reader way of dealing with things. Is that more accurate to your stance? You should read the multiple wordings they considered before deciding on the last version. Your assumptions are wrong, as usual. Just reading what we actually have and showing why we vague it up so much. First part of the amendment. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, Where it is clear that the security of a free state is insured by a militia. Second part of the amendment. the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Once again, this phrase is in continuation of the first phrase, the first phrase being augmented by the 2nd phrase. That is literally what it is saying. It does not say that we need guns to protect against tyranny, it says we need a well regulated militia against tyranny, and it'd be cool if those militias had guns. You are translating "shall not be infringed" to "it'd be cool if they had guns". Wow. Yeah that's totally what it could mean dude. It's pointless this guy is clearly more educated in constitutional law and English grammar of the time than SCOTUS. I pointed out why his assumptions are wrong, which is easy to see when you look at the multiple forms that were considered and he just ignores that and goes right back to his interpretation. Being that I said "You could also stick with Supreme Court readings that ignore portions of the amendment and emphasizes others." And the supreme court most recently said "not just the militia" in their recent ruling of the second amendment. I am not inaccurate at all in what I'm saying. If you want to stick to the actual amendment and follow it word for word--then you can't ignore the militia and you can't ignore well regulated. However, SCOTUS chooses to do it because they're not about reading it word for word but on vague-ing it up and trying to read what it could mean outside of the word for word meanings. Just look at the sentence, "well regulated militia, being necessary" and then having Scalia say "not just militia" when the amendment literally says that the militia is what is necessary. To be fair, it doesn't say ONLY the militia is necessary. You're right, I'm mixing it up with one of the federalist papers. But either or, we vague things up for a reason. In order for it to be relevant. I'm not trying to vague anything up, I prefer for things to be clear. I think a fair interpretation of "well-regulated" to mean "enough regulation to ensure a fair balance between safety of the people and security of the society"
See, that balancing act is something that people project into the amendment. It doesn't make those comparisons within the words themselves. Which is what makes it frustrating.
I do believe that the founding fathers knew this to be true and did the ultimate troll move of having a law that both says "well regulated" and "cannot be infringed" and I do believe its so that we will have these arguments. I feel that they made it this way so that neither side of the debate can get lazy by providing both "good evidence" against each other. And I do believe that the constancy of this debate protects freedom better than any gun or regulation.
|
On May 21 2013 08:50 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2013 08:46 kmillz wrote:On May 21 2013 08:43 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 21 2013 08:41 Millitron wrote:On May 21 2013 08:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 21 2013 08:30 heliusx wrote:On May 21 2013 08:25 kmillz wrote:On May 21 2013 08:13 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 21 2013 08:06 heliusx wrote:On May 21 2013 07:58 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
It does say specifically "Well regulated" which is the opposite of no regulations and counter intuitive to minimal regulation. Technically speaking, it means slightly below over regulation.
It then also states that it is the militia that is important to the defense of the state--the arming and bearing added in last as a way to augment said militia
In other words, militias need to be armed, and they need to be well regulated. That is, if you want to stick to the exact words of the amendment. You could also stick with Supreme Court readings that ignore portions of the amendment and emphasizes others.
Also, on the tyranny thing, you can't have it both ways.
If you are scared enough to need guns to stop it, then you don't feel safe.
If you do feel safe, then why the hell would you want guns to stop something you don't think is coming?
I wouldn't point a gun at a random guy on the street and say to him "don't take it personal, just being safe you know." You're either scared of something or you're not. Now, you can enjoy having guns and become so stubborn in a debate you're willing to bring up points you don't really believe in just to prove a point--that would be a very internet forum reader way of dealing with things. Is that more accurate to your stance? You should read the multiple wordings they considered before deciding on the last version. Your assumptions are wrong, as usual. Just reading what we actually have and showing why we vague it up so much. First part of the amendment. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, Where it is clear that the security of a free state is insured by a militia. Second part of the amendment. the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Once again, this phrase is in continuation of the first phrase, the first phrase being augmented by the 2nd phrase. That is literally what it is saying. It does not say that we need guns to protect against tyranny, it says we need a well regulated militia against tyranny, and it'd be cool if those militias had guns. You are translating "shall not be infringed" to "it'd be cool if they had guns". Wow. Yeah that's totally what it could mean dude. It's pointless this guy is clearly more educated in constitutional law and English grammar of the time than SCOTUS. I pointed out why his assumptions are wrong, which is easy to see when you look at the multiple forms that were considered and he just ignores that and goes right back to his interpretation. Being that I said "You could also stick with Supreme Court readings that ignore portions of the amendment and emphasizes others." And the supreme court most recently said "not just the militia" in their recent ruling of the second amendment. I am not inaccurate at all in what I'm saying. If you want to stick to the actual amendment and follow it word for word--then you can't ignore the militia and you can't ignore well regulated. However, SCOTUS chooses to do it because they're not about reading it word for word but on vague-ing it up and trying to read what it could mean outside of the word for word meanings. Just look at the sentence, "well regulated militia, being necessary" and then having Scalia say "not just militia" when the amendment literally says that the militia is what is necessary. To be fair, it doesn't say ONLY the militia is necessary. You're right, I'm mixing it up with one of the federalist papers. But either or, we vague things up for a reason. In order for it to be relevant. I'm not trying to vague anything up, I prefer for things to be clear. I think a fair interpretation of "well-regulated" to mean "enough regulation to ensure a fair balance between safety of the people and security of the society" See, that balancing act is something that people project into the amendment. It doesn't make those comparisons within the words themselves. Which is what makes it frustrating. I do believe that the founding fathers knew this to be true and did the ultimate troll move of having a law that both says "well regulated" and "cannot be infringed" and I do believe its so that we will have these arguments. I feel that they made it this way so that neither side of the debate can get lazy by providing both "good evidence" against each other. And I do believe that the constancy of this debate protects freedom better than any gun or regulation.
They were certainly smart and I suppose they worded it this way so we don't end up having it too extreme one way or the other. Too much gun control, in their eyes, is not smart because nobody can predict if we will ever need them. However allowing people to own and carry unlimited firearms unregulated is obviously going to be its own disaster.
|
does say specifically "Well regulated" which is the opposite of no regulations and counter intuitive to minimal regulation. Technically speaking, it means slightly below over regulation.
This is not what well-regulated means in context or historically.
The now-archaic phrase was used for several hundred years to indicate proper working order; e.g., "well-regulated courts," "well-regulated clocks," or "well-regulated militias." That is to say that a "well-regulated militia" has nothing whatsoever to do with modern understanding of government regulations, but refers to a militia that works well, namely one that's well-armed. With this understanding it becomes clear (if it wasn't already) that the 2A was created for the sole purpose of rendering the state incapable of disarming its citizens, and the anachronistic semantic play of gun-control supporters is just another bit of dishonesty and deception.
|
On May 21 2013 09:38 blahblehblah wrote:Show nested quote + does say specifically "Well regulated" which is the opposite of no regulations and counter intuitive to minimal regulation. Technically speaking, it means slightly below over regulation. This is not what well-regulated means in context or historically. The now-archaic phrase was used for several hundred years to indicate proper working order; e.g., "well-regulated courts," "well-regulated clocks," or "well-regulated militias." That is to say that a "well-regulated militia" has nothing whatsoever to do with modern understanding of government regulations, but refers to a militia that works well, namely one that's well-armed. With this understanding it becomes clear (if it wasn't already) that the 2A was created for the sole purpose of rendering the state incapable of disarming its citizens, and the anachronistic semantic play of gun-control supporters is just another bit of dishonesty and deception.
Bingo!
See, @Thieving Magpie and Gentlemen, here we have something called context being applied to the historical documentation. How could we have established this context? Perhaps the myriad writings we have by the architects of the Bill of Rights and the Founders en mass at our disposal? I believe that not too long ago in this thread DEB laid down a number of quotes to this exact effect (addressed specifically to you) which leads me to wonder why you are electing to harp on a point we've already had concluded?
We have already established what was meant by a "well regulated militia". You are now knowingly engaging in falsehoods and misinformation (for what purpose I know not). So, you're either incapable of understanding what was written the first time, or you are consciously electing to ignore relevant information.
My question: Which is it?
|
I'd just like to point out again that the word "militia" as it is meant in the Second Amendment means both the formal, "organized" militia (analogous in some respects but not all to today's National Guard), and also the reserve or "unorganized" militia, which consists of every single able-bodied male in the country not working an essential job (arms factory, mailmen etc) who could be subject to the draft (every guy 17 to 45 and these days females too).
And in a national emergency (invasion or rebellion), the upper age limit would probably be raised or lifted altogether, and everyone 17 and up in the country would be considered part of the militia.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
