It's the Guns

originally posted by: mortex

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: mortex
What a silly post.
An armed populace in a militia is a deterrent to tyrants. It is also a deterent and another factor thst an invading force has to factor in. It will cost more lives dle an invader.

The fact you can not comprehend something so basic amd obvious as demonstrated by your post is amazing.

If you really think guns cant be used to protect ones freedom and liberties, you..well..lol.
Guns form part of a defence force or military. Are you going to say they don't play a role there? You going to ask who the enemy is?

Who is the enemy?
Is your enemy today necessarily your enemy tomorrow.
Did the USA once fight on the same side as Russia and China technically?
Would you call the relationship the USA has with both as friendly and on good terms?

You either unintentionally ignorant or you chooseto be.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Generation9
a reply to: ErEhWoN

The American public has common sense. Guns protect our freedom.

Explain how guns protect your freedom?

If you think you can defend yourself against the military, you are deluded.

If you draw a gun on police (or if they think you are doing so), they have been trained to shoot for the center of your body mass in reaction. Things will most likely not end well.

Once upon a time, trained militias had the capability of defending the rights of citizen groups, but who is in a militia these days? The paramilitary groups are too small to oppose government agencies, the military or the police.

And, just for a minute, consider if the words "freedom" or "liberty" are even valid to use in the situation. At the time of the war of independence, the US had slavery and the British didn't. In fact that 'libertine' state of the US was one of the last countries in the world to abolish slavery. Such freedom under the Constitution!

And, look at the situation today, look at your prisons. There are more people in prison, and a higher percentage of citizens per capita, than any other country in the world. On those grounds, the US is the least free nation on Earth.

But wave that flag like crazy and keep chanting the slogans they taught you in your indoctrination civics classes. Then you can be excused for not reasoning out the obvious.

Your enemy wants you to lay down your gun and give up. Just roll over and die.

Who is this enemy that is seeking to kill or enslave you? Is slavery even legal or condoned by any nation? I'm fairly sure that murder is illegal across the planet, too.

Also, don't you know of the gun death statistics? Lots of people are dying of GSW. The vast majority of them are killed by their own gun! It's not some 'pew pew' game of goodies vs. baddies.

Seems like you lack common sense.

Really?

The US government would suggest that the rebels were traitors and terrorists. They would't go after them with the military in the first instance, but rather with the standard policing. When it failed to control the populace, then the military would be called in.

All through such conflict there would be many Americans who emphatically side with their government. Even if that government was randomly rounding up and killing people by the thousands. Those people would continue to echo the government's descriptions of its opponents as traitors and terrorists. As has always been.

The only way the US government would go after its own people is if it was subverted and your rights were severely impacted, ie your gun rights. That would be why Patriotic US citizens would take up arms.

But luckily for you the people were able to get a fellow patriot elected to the oval office in Donald Trump, whose putting the people and country first and isnt selling you out to globalist interests nor starting new wars for the globalists where your young men go and die.

Some might suggest that Trump has already classified some people who were born in the US and who have lived there for decades, as "illegals" and non-citizens (remember that under the Constitution they have birthright citizenship).

Under Trump's government, there have been round ups and deportations of these people.

Some are undesirables, definitely, and should be deported, but most just wanted to escape to find a better life for themselves and their families.

They should only deport those who have committed criminal acts, or that have made no attempt to find gainful employment, or that avoid taxation.

But if those 'illegals' are law abiding, pay taxes and draw a wage, it looks a bit over the top to arrest and deport them, and verges very close to the edge of tyranny (in my opinion).

a reply to: chr0naut
Enforcing our laws is Tyranny?
Some might suggest we enforce our laws as is the custom of every civilized society.
Perhaps those wanting to live here could respect the laws of the nation they want to make a life in?

Otherwise they should go.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: chr0naut
Enforcing our laws is Tyranny?
Some might suggest we enforce our laws as is the custom of every civilized society.
Perhaps those wanting to live here could respect the laws of the nation they want to make a life in?

Otherwise they should go.

Your laws, based upon your Constitution, grant birthright citizenship.

Fourteenth amendment, first sentence: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

a reply to: chr0naut
And.....
Whats your point?
Those that break the law should still go.

None of which has to do with us not giving up out 2nd amendment rights.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: chr0naut
Enforcing our laws is Tyranny?
Some might suggest we enforce our laws as is the custom of every civilized society.
Perhaps those wanting to live here could respect the laws of the nation they want to make a life in?

Otherwise they should go.

Your laws, based upon your Constitution, grant birthright citizenship.

Fourteenth amendment, first sentence: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

"and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"

Means born to citizens. Not that anyone who shows up and gives birth, then the child is a citizen.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: chr0naut
Enforcing our laws is Tyranny?
Some might suggest we enforce our laws as is the custom of every civilized society.
Perhaps those wanting to live here could respect the laws of the nation they want to make a life in?

Otherwise they should go.

Your laws, based upon your Constitution, grant birthright citizenship.

Fourteenth amendment, first sentence: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

SO, the child can legally stay, but the illegal parent? How do you reconcile that without allowing someone to freely break the law without any punishment?

originally posted by: poncho1982

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: chr0naut
Enforcing our laws is Tyranny?
Some might suggest we enforce our laws as is the custom of every civilized society.
Perhaps those wanting to live here could respect the laws of the nation they want to make a life in?

Otherwise they should go.

Your laws, based upon your Constitution, grant birthright citizenship.

Fourteenth amendment, first sentence: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

"and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"

Means born to citizens. Not that anyone who shows up and gives birth, then the child is a citizen.

It means that the US law fully applies to those people born or naturalized there. They are citizens.

If the "subject to the jurisdiction, thereof" is some sort of weird caveat, then what, in legal terms, does it actually mean?

Since a child does not exist as a separate legal entity until birth, they cannot become citizens until they exist. So, at the time of birth, they aren't yet under jurisdiction and so every child born in the US would be a non citizen unless they were officially registered as a citizen in a citizenship process - that is if you want to believe that the phrase there means a particular stipulation of law that must be conformed with prior to becoming a citizen.

Since it is clear that all US citizens must, by necessity, be subject to US laws, it is clear that the phrase was defining the responsibilities of citizenship for those born in, or naturalized to, the country.

This clause says nothing about the citizen state of the parents. Your argument simply does not work.

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: chr0naut
Enforcing our laws is Tyranny?
Some might suggest we enforce our laws as is the custom of every civilized society.
Perhaps those wanting to live here could respect the laws of the nation they want to make a life in?

Otherwise they should go.

Your laws, based upon your Constitution, grant birthright citizenship.

Fourteenth amendment, first sentence: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

SO, the child can legally stay, but the illegal parent? How do you reconcile that without allowing someone to freely break the law without any punishment?

The parents could apply for asylum, or citizenship, or a green card or whatever.

They don't automatically become citizens just because they become parents.

Neither are they to be deported and their child taken away from them, just because they aren't citizens. There are processes that will allow non-citizens to stay and work in the US legally.

The law isn't there to break up the families of people that some citizens don't like.

I think it is reasonable that if someone is undocumented, is not committing crimes, is gainfully employed, is cooperating legally and socially, and is paying, or will pay tax, then they should have the opportunity to stay and gain citizenship through naturalization.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: chr0naut
Enforcing our laws is Tyranny?
Some might suggest we enforce our laws as is the custom of every civilized society.
Perhaps those wanting to live here could respect the laws of the nation they want to make a life in?

Otherwise they should go.

Your laws, based upon your Constitution, grant birthright citizenship.

Fourteenth amendment, first sentence: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

SO, the child can legally stay, but the illegal parent? How do you reconcile that without allowing someone to freely break the law without any punishment?

The parents could apply for asylum, or citizenship, or a green card or whatever.

They don't automatically become citizens just because they become parents.

Neither are they to be deported and their child taken away from them, just because they aren't citizens. There are processes that will allow non-citizens to stay and work in the US legally.

The law isn't there to break up the families of people that some citizens don't like.

I think it is reasonable that if someone is undocumented, is not committing crimes, is gainfully employed, is cooperating legally and socially, and is paying, or will pay tax, then they should have the opportunity to stay and gain citizenship through naturalization.

Applying for asylum means they need to qualify for that particular program. What if they don't qualify? Then what?
What if they are not gainfully employed and have no skills?
What if they do not apply for a green card?
What if its found they are running from a crime in their home country?

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: chr0naut
Enforcing our laws is Tyranny?
Some might suggest we enforce our laws as is the custom of every civilized society.
Perhaps those wanting to live here could respect the laws of the nation they want to make a life in?

Otherwise they should go.

Your laws, based upon your Constitution, grant birthright citizenship.

Fourteenth amendment, first sentence: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

SO, the child can legally stay, but the illegal parent? How do you reconcile that without allowing someone to freely break the law without any punishment?

The parents could apply for asylum, or citizenship, or a green card or whatever.

They don't automatically become citizens just because they become parents.

Neither are they to be deported and their child taken away from them, just because they aren't citizens. There are processes that will allow non-citizens to stay and work in the US legally.

The law isn't there to break up the families of people that some citizens don't like.

I think it is reasonable that if someone is undocumented, is not committing crimes, is gainfully employed, is cooperating legally and socially, and is paying, or will pay tax, then they should have the opportunity to stay and gain citizenship through naturalization.

Applying for asylum means they need to qualify for that particular program. What if they don't qualify? Then what?
What if they are not gainfully employed and have no skills?
What if they do not apply for a green card?
What if its found they are running from a crime in their home country?

Then you adjudicate what to do, in a court of law, and act on the decision of the judge.

If they have committed crimes, they do the time, no matter where they are from.

If they aren't working, you place them in unskilled work.

If they don't apply for a green card then they clearly cannot legally get work. So you once again place them in unskilled work.

If they don't turn up for work, or apply for a green card, or they have done something criminal, then any government support (like social security) should be severely curtailed and they go before a judge where deportment is one of the possible outcomes, just as is prison.

a reply to: ErEhWoN

" In a Democracy (or Republic or whatever you want to call it), if you have to raise arms against a tyrannical government, YOU HAVE ALREADY LOST."


Not Necessarily if you Happen to be the " Boss " , We The People Of The United States " . A LEGAL License to Justifiably Kill All Who Oppose it . If by Any Chance Some Questionable " Lawyers " Disagree , they would of Course Also be Shot , the LAW is Meant Not to Discriminate as you Well Know ..............

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: chr0naut
Enforcing our laws is Tyranny?
Some might suggest we enforce our laws as is the custom of every civilized society.
Perhaps those wanting to live here could respect the laws of the nation they want to make a life in?

Otherwise they should go.

Your laws, based upon your Constitution, grant birthright citizenship.

Fourteenth amendment, first sentence: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

SO, the child can legally stay, but the illegal parent? How do you reconcile that without allowing someone to freely break the law without any punishment?

I think it is reasonable that if someone is undocumented, is not committing crimes, is gainfully employed, is cooperating legally and socially, and is paying, or will pay tax, then they should have the opportunity to stay and gain citizenship through naturalization.

See, that is the problem, clearly defined out of your mouth. If I were to think that other criminals such as people owning illegal machine guns should be left alone, I can think that, right? According to you, it's just what we think, not whether it goes against the law, eh? That's not how it works and how it was set up to work. You know that.

So, you're saying that if I illegally break into to your house to live there, against your wishes, that would be all right with you? That would be great! My roof leaks and I'm tired of putting up with it. I'll see you soon.

a reply to: ErEhWoN

Well duh... unfortunately America will never figure that out

originally posted by: TrulyColorBlind

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: chr0naut
Enforcing our laws is Tyranny?
Some might suggest we enforce our laws as is the custom of every civilized society.
Perhaps those wanting to live here could respect the laws of the nation they want to make a life in?

Otherwise they should go.

Your laws, based upon your Constitution, grant birthright citizenship.

Fourteenth amendment, first sentence: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

SO, the child can legally stay, but the illegal parent? How do you reconcile that without allowing someone to freely break the law without any punishment?

I think it is reasonable that if someone is undocumented, is not committing crimes, is gainfully employed, is cooperating legally and socially, and is paying, or will pay tax, then they should have the opportunity to stay and gain citizenship through naturalization.

See, that is the problem, clearly defined out of your mouth. If I were to think that other criminals such as people owning illegal machine guns should be left alone, I can think that, right? According to you, it's just what we think, not whether it goes against the law, eh? That's not how it works and how it was set up to work. You know that.

The second amendment just says 'arms' not guns. perhaps it meant atomic bombs, nerve gas or other WMD's?

Of course, we both know it really doesn't mean that.

Nor does it mean that every citizen should be allowed to carry guns.

It was clearly about organized militias for the protection of the freedom of the people, which is different from everyone, even those not in militias, carrying a weapon.

So, you're saying that if I illegally break into to your house to live there, against your wishes, that would be all right with you? That would be great! My roof leaks and I'm tired of putting up with it. I'll see you soon.

They aren't breaking in to your house. They also aren't selling you drugs or shooting you.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TrulyColorBlind

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: chr0naut
Enforcing our laws is Tyranny?
Some might suggest we enforce our laws as is the custom of every civilized society.
Perhaps those wanting to live here could respect the laws of the nation they want to make a life in?

Otherwise they should go.

Your laws, based upon your Constitution, grant birthright citizenship.

Fourteenth amendment, first sentence: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

SO, the child can legally stay, but the illegal parent? How do you reconcile that without allowing someone to freely break the law without any punishment?

I think it is reasonable that if someone is undocumented, is not committing crimes, is gainfully employed, is cooperating legally and socially, and is paying, or will pay tax, then they should have the opportunity to stay and gain citizenship through naturalization.

See, that is the problem, clearly defined out of your mouth. If I were to think that other criminals such as people owning illegal machine guns should be left alone, I can think that, right? According to you, it's just what we think, not whether it goes against the law, eh? That's not how it works and how it was set up to work. You know that.

The second amendment just says 'arms' not guns. perhaps it meant atomic bombs, nerve gas or other WMD's?

Of course, we both know it really doesn't mean that.

Nor does it mean that every citizen should be allowed to carry guns.

It was clearly about organized militias for the protection of the freedom of the people, which is different from everyone, even those not in militias, carrying a weapon.

So, you're saying that if I illegally break into to your house to live there, against your wishes, that would be all right with you? That would be great! My roof leaks and I'm tired of putting up with it. I'll see you soon.

They aren't breaking in to your house. They also aren't selling you drugs or shooting you.

Arms, in 18th Century parlance is short for FIREarms. That means guns. And YES, it does mean citizens have the right to possess and carry firearms. And, that right SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, which means putting laws and regulations in place to impede them from exercising that right.

Please, stop making up crap to support your anti-gun stance.

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TrulyColorBlind

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: chr0naut
Enforcing our laws is Tyranny?
Some might suggest we enforce our laws as is the custom of every civilized society.
Perhaps those wanting to live here could respect the laws of the nation they want to make a life in?

Otherwise they should go.

Your laws, based upon your Constitution, grant birthright citizenship.

Fourteenth amendment, first sentence: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

SO, the child can legally stay, but the illegal parent? How do you reconcile that without allowing someone to freely break the law without any punishment?

I think it is reasonable that if someone is undocumented, is not committing crimes, is gainfully employed, is cooperating legally and socially, and is paying, or will pay tax, then they should have the opportunity to stay and gain citizenship through naturalization.

See, that is the problem, clearly defined out of your mouth. If I were to think that other criminals such as people owning illegal machine guns should be left alone, I can think that, right? According to you, it's just what we think, not whether it goes against the law, eh? That's not how it works and how it was set up to work. You know that.

The second amendment just says 'arms' not guns. perhaps it meant atomic bombs, nerve gas or other WMD's?

Of course, we both know it really doesn't mean that.

Nor does it mean that every citizen should be allowed to carry guns.

It was clearly about organized militias for the protection of the freedom of the people, which is different from everyone, even those not in militias, carrying a weapon.

So, you're saying that if I illegally break into to your house to live there, against your wishes, that would be all right with you? That would be great! My roof leaks and I'm tired of putting up with it. I'll see you soon.

They aren't breaking in to your house. They also aren't selling you drugs or shooting you.

Arms, in 18th Century parlance is short for FIREarms. That means guns. And YES, it does mean citizens have the right to possess and carry firearms. And, that right SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, which means putting laws and regulations in place to impede them from exercising that right.

Please, stop making up crap to support your anti-gun stance.

So, in the 18th century, they didn't have swords knives, spears, arrows, battle axes, maces, ballistas, bombs and canon?

You know, arms, short for ARMamentS.



Also, I'm fairly sure that it isn't legally valid to chop up a single legal clause into little sub-sections and apply those sub-meanings when they don't relate to the subject of the paragraph. Generally sentences go together and each paragraph or clause has a primary subject to which all the enclosed stipulations relate.

The right to bear arms as part of a well regulated militia, shall not be infringed.

Otherwise the 2nd amendment could be taken to mean arm the criminally insane. I'd guess they didn't intend that.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TrulyColorBlind

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: chr0naut
Enforcing our laws is Tyranny?
Some might suggest we enforce our laws as is the custom of every civilized society.
Perhaps those wanting to live here could respect the laws of the nation they want to make a life in?

Otherwise they should go.

Your laws, based upon your Constitution, grant birthright citizenship.

Fourteenth amendment, first sentence: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

SO, the child can legally stay, but the illegal parent? How do you reconcile that without allowing someone to freely break the law without any punishment?

I think it is reasonable that if someone is undocumented, is not committing crimes, is gainfully employed, is cooperating legally and socially, and is paying, or will pay tax, then they should have the opportunity to stay and gain citizenship through naturalization.

See, that is the problem, clearly defined out of your mouth. If I were to think that other criminals such as people owning illegal machine guns should be left alone, I can think that, right? According to you, it's just what we think, not whether it goes against the law, eh? That's not how it works and how it was set up to work. You know that.

The second amendment just says 'arms' not guns. perhaps it meant atomic bombs, nerve gas or other WMD's?

Of course, we both know it really doesn't mean that.

Nor does it mean that every citizen should be allowed to carry guns.

It was clearly about organized militias for the protection of the freedom of the people, which is different from everyone, even those not in militias, carrying a weapon.

So, you're saying that if I illegally break into to your house to live there, against your wishes, that would be all right with you? That would be great! My roof leaks and I'm tired of putting up with it. I'll see you soon.

They aren't breaking in to your house. They also aren't selling you drugs or shooting you.

Arms, in 18th Century parlance is short for FIREarms. That means guns. And YES, it does mean citizens have the right to possess and carry firearms. And, that right SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, which means putting laws and regulations in place to impede them from exercising that right.

Please, stop making up crap to support your anti-gun stance.

So, in the 18th century, they didn't have swords knives, spears, arrows, battle axes, maces, ballistas, bombs and canon? You know, arms, short for ARMamentS.

Also, I'm fairly sure that it isn't legally valid to chop up a single legal clause int little sub-sections and apply that meaning. Generally sentences go together and each paragraph or clause has a primary subject to which all the stipulations relate.

The right to bear arms as part of a well regulated militia shall not be infringed.

Otherwise the 2nd amendment could be taken to mean arm the criminally insane and I'm sure they didn't intend that.

FIREarms is what was meant in that amendment. Your attempt to deflect to other items is beneath you to be honest.

And, seem the U.S> SCOTUS (the real deciders of the law here in the U.S.) have ruled in the Heller case that it does apply to INDIVIDUAL citizens, and is NOT dependent upon them being in a militia.

You are really contorting and twisting here to beat a dead horse because you don't like it's color.

Give it a rest. You simply do NOT understand our Constitutional amendment, so just admit it already. Accept the fact that we in this country have the RIGHT to own firearms, and are protected from our government taking them by our supreme law.

Sheesh.

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TrulyColorBlind

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: chr0naut
Enforcing our laws is Tyranny?
Some might suggest we enforce our laws as is the custom of every civilized society.
Perhaps those wanting to live here could respect the laws of the nation they want to make a life in?

Otherwise they should go.

Your laws, based upon your Constitution, grant birthright citizenship.

Fourteenth amendment, first sentence: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

SO, the child can legally stay, but the illegal parent? How do you reconcile that without allowing someone to freely break the law without any punishment?

I think it is reasonable that if someone is undocumented, is not committing crimes, is gainfully employed, is cooperating legally and socially, and is paying, or will pay tax, then they should have the opportunity to stay and gain citizenship through naturalization.

See, that is the problem, clearly defined out of your mouth. If I were to think that other criminals such as people owning illegal machine guns should be left alone, I can think that, right? According to you, it's just what we think, not whether it goes against the law, eh? That's not how it works and how it was set up to work. You know that.

The second amendment just says 'arms' not guns. perhaps it meant atomic bombs, nerve gas or other WMD's?

Of course, we both know it really doesn't mean that.

Nor does it mean that every citizen should be allowed to carry guns.

It was clearly about organized militias for the protection of the freedom of the people, which is different from everyone, even those not in militias, carrying a weapon.

So, you're saying that if I illegally break into to your house to live there, against your wishes, that would be all right with you? That would be great! My roof leaks and I'm tired of putting up with it. I'll see you soon.

They aren't breaking in to your house. They also aren't selling you drugs or shooting you.

Arms, in 18th Century parlance is short for FIREarms. That means guns. And YES, it does mean citizens have the right to possess and carry firearms. And, that right SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, which means putting laws and regulations in place to impede them from exercising that right.

Please, stop making up crap to support your anti-gun stance.

So, in the 18th century, they didn't have swords knives, spears, arrows, battle axes, maces, ballistas, bombs and canon? You know, arms, short for ARMamentS.

Also, I'm fairly sure that it isn't legally valid to chop up a single legal clause int little sub-sections and apply that meaning. Generally sentences go together and each paragraph or clause has a primary subject to which all the stipulations relate.

The right to bear arms as part of a well regulated militia shall not be infringed.

Otherwise the 2nd amendment could be taken to mean arm the criminally insane and I'm sure they didn't intend that.

FIREarms is what was meant in that amendment. Your attempt to deflect to other items is beneath you to be honest.

And, seem the U.S> SCOTUS (the real deciders of the law here in the U.S.) have ruled in the Heller case that it does apply to INDIVIDUAL citizens, and is NOT dependent upon them being in a militia.

You are really contorting and twisting here to beat a dead horse because you don't like it's color.

Give it a rest. You simply do NOT understand our Constitutional amendment, so just admit it already. Accept the fact that we in this country have the RIGHT to own firearms, and are protected from our government taking them by our supreme law.

Sheesh.

Honestly, I'm too far away for US fired bullets to reach.

Nor do i suggest that the US should be disarmed.

The idea of a well regulated militia keeping the government honest sounds fair, even in an age where the government probably out-guns the population in any one trouble spot.

That is why a militia can be effective where armed individuals cannot do anything other than cause local anarchy and pointless death.

Without the organization of the citizens (militia), the defense of citizen freedom against a large, organized, armed and oppressive government cannot happen anyway.

For the 2nd amendment to work and do what it is supposed to do, it must involve well regulated militias, not individuals.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TrulyColorBlind

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: chr0naut
Enforcing our laws is Tyranny?
Some might suggest we enforce our laws as is the custom of every civilized society.
Perhaps those wanting to live here could respect the laws of the nation they want to make a life in?

Otherwise they should go.

Your laws, based upon your Constitution, grant birthright citizenship.

Fourteenth amendment, first sentence: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

SO, the child can legally stay, but the illegal parent? How do you reconcile that without allowing someone to freely break the law without any punishment?

I think it is reasonable that if someone is undocumented, is not committing crimes, is gainfully employed, is cooperating legally and socially, and is paying, or will pay tax, then they should have the opportunity to stay and gain citizenship through naturalization.

See, that is the problem, clearly defined out of your mouth. If I were to think that other criminals such as people owning illegal machine guns should be left alone, I can think that, right? According to you, it's just what we think, not whether it goes against the law, eh? That's not how it works and how it was set up to work. You know that.

The second amendment just says 'arms' not guns. perhaps it meant atomic bombs, nerve gas or other WMD's?

Of course, we both know it really doesn't mean that.

Nor does it mean that every citizen should be allowed to carry guns.

It was clearly about organized militias for the protection of the freedom of the people, which is different from everyone, even those not in militias, carrying a weapon.

So, you're saying that if I illegally break into to your house to live there, against your wishes, that would be all right with you? That would be great! My roof leaks and I'm tired of putting up with it. I'll see you soon.

They aren't breaking in to your house. They also aren't selling you drugs or shooting you.

Arms, in 18th Century parlance is short for FIREarms. That means guns. And YES, it does mean citizens have the right to possess and carry firearms. And, that right SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, which means putting laws and regulations in place to impede them from exercising that right.

Please, stop making up crap to support your anti-gun stance.

So, in the 18th century, they didn't have swords knives, spears, arrows, battle axes, maces, ballistas, bombs and canon? You know, arms, short for ARMamentS.

Also, I'm fairly sure that it isn't legally valid to chop up a single legal clause int little sub-sections and apply that meaning. Generally sentences go together and each paragraph or clause has a primary subject to which all the stipulations relate.

The right to bear arms as part of a well regulated militia shall not be infringed.

Otherwise the 2nd amendment could be taken to mean arm the criminally insane and I'm sure they didn't intend that.

FIREarms is what was meant in that amendment. Your attempt to deflect to other items is beneath you to be honest.

And, seem the U.S> SCOTUS (the real deciders of the law here in the U.S.) have ruled in the Heller case that it does apply to INDIVIDUAL citizens, and is NOT dependent upon them being in a militia.

You are really contorting and twisting here to beat a dead horse because you don't like it's color.

Give it a rest. You simply do NOT understand our Constitutional amendment, so just admit it already. Accept the fact that we in this country have the RIGHT to own firearms, and are protected from our government taking them by our supreme law.

Sheesh.

Honestly, I'm too far away for US fired bullets to reach.

Nor do i suggest that the US should be disarmed.

The idea of a well regulated militia keeping the government honest sounds fair, even in an age where the government probably out-guns the population in any one trouble spot.

That is why a militia can be effective where armed individuals cannot do anything other than cause local anarchy and pointless death.

Without the organization of the citizens (militia), the defense of citizen freedom against a large, organized, armed and oppressive government cannot happen anyway.

For the 2nd amendment to work and do what it is supposed to do, it must involve well regulated militias, not individuals.

The point you are missing, is that the militias are made up of the citizenry....not regular army. For the citizens to be able to do that, they need to be able to keep and bear their OWN arms and not be dependent upon the government to hold them. Therefore, for the amendment to be effective, the citizens MUST be able to own firearms, and as the SCOTUS correctly ruled, that right is not dependent upon them being in a militia.

And, for clarity, "well regulated" in the 18th Century meant well trained, in good order. Personally, I would welcome the requirement for anyone wishing to exercise their 2nd amendment be well trained by certified training. However, for it to be fair to everyone, the cost should NOT be such that a poor person would be unable to afford it, and therefore, it would be an infringement upon their right.

a reply to: Krakatoa

Actually, based on my study, "well regulated" meant "fully equipped."

In other words, militias were in contradistinction to "regular" army units, who had uniform/standardized dress and equipment and training.


I think you could totally make the argument that "a well regulated militia" intends for identical, interchangeable equipment--like rifles that all used the same caliber bullet and same amounts of powder.

So a universally available long arm that veterans would instantly recognize would fit the bill perfectly.

The AR-15 comes to mind.

It would be better, in a genuine existential crisis, for lots of militia members to have served in the regulars, and all be using the same weapons.

For a generation or two after the American Revolution, several New England states had a state holiday called "muster day," when all able bodied males showed up on the village green and practiced forming ranks, followed by a marksmanship competition.