Your point? The 2nd amendment guarantees the rights of those civilians to bear arms.nvxplorer said:
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Your point? The 2nd amendment guarantees the rights of those civilians to bear arms.nvxplorer said:LOL
Do you know what a militia is? If you did, you wouldn't make such a nonsensical distinction between the People and the militia.
Let me help you out. The militia is composed of civilians (the People), whereas the military is composed of soldiers (the government). See the difference?
MachZer0 said:The part that comes from taxes
MachZer0 said:Your point? The 2nd amendment guarantees the rights of those civilians to bear arms.
MachZer0 said:More like communists
A well regulated militia.MachZer0 said:Your point? The 2nd amendment guarantees the rights of those civilians to bear arms.
The amendment is clear stating the right of the people.. But either way, using your interpretation or mine, what is the ACLU's track record on defending the 2nd Amendment?nvxplorer said:A well regulated militia.
Twisting others' words is a sign of dishonesty. Twisting one's own words is a sign of delusion.
MachZer0 said:The amendment is clear stating the right of the people..
But either way, using your interpretation or mine, what is the ACLU's track record on defending the 2nd Amendment?
The militia and the People are one and the same. Do you really not understand that?MachZer0 said:The amendment is clear stating the right of the people.
This has already been addressed.But either way, using your interpretation or mine, what is the ACLU's track record on defending the 2nd Amendment?
A simple reading of the Federalist papers, particularly #46 would dispel the rumor that I am erroeously ignoring the militia portion of the amendmentNathan Poe said:And the reason... which you continually ignore. Besides, no amendment is absolute. Laws can be passed restricting any amendment if a sufficient reason exists.
All based on misinterpretations of the ConstitutionWe have freedom of expression, but anti-Obscenity laws.
We have freedom of the press, but they can still be sued for libel.
We have freedom of Speech, but it doesn't cover death threats.
Why then should the second amendment be sacrosanct, if none of the others are?
And without arms, there is no militia, thus the people have the right to keep and bear armsnvxplorer said:The militia and the People are one and the same. Do you really not understand that?
Actually, I offred examples where the right to bear arms has been infringed. Where was the ACLU?This has already been addressed
No one's right to bear arms has been infringed. Your claims are a strawman. This entire thread is a strawman. I think we should rename it "The Infinite Scarecrow."
The militia cannot be regulated unless the citizentry is armed.Do you understand the word "regulated?" That's what the Constitution states. If you ignore that word, you are an activist. That would make you a leftist, by your own definition. Seems to fit. As your idea of a leftist is "anyone who disagrees with me," and you routinely contradict yourself, you therefore disagree with yourself, making you a leftist. And that's a strict constuctionist viewpoint!
There is no mention of a right to own an automobile. That's why your car is registered with the state and not the federal government.(I am required to register (register!) my vehicle. Why is my state trying to ban automobiles?)
Doh! Why didn't I think of that?MachZer0 said:And without arms, there is no militia, thus the people have the right to keep and bear arms
No you haven't. You've offered examples of regulation. Put on your strict constructionist reading cap and look for the word "regulated" in the Second Amendment.Actually, I offred examples where the right to bear arms has been infringed. Where was the ACLU?
In other words, a militia requires that citizens be armed? Double doh!The militia cannot be regulated unless the citizentry is armed.
And the point flutters directly over your head.There is no mention of a right to own an automobile. That's why your car is registered with the state and not the federal government.
You wrote Federalist #46?MachZer0 said:A simple reading of the Federalist papers, particularly #46 would dispel the rumor that I am erroeously ignoring the militia portion of the amendment
JustOneWay said:http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/14523res20020304.html
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control. We believe that the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of gun ownership. If we can license and register cars, we can license and register guns. [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Most opponents of gun control concede that the Second Amendment certainly does not guarantee an individual's right to own bazookas, missiles or nuclear warheads. Yet these, like rifles, pistols and even submachine guns, are arms. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]The question therefore is not whether to restrict arms ownership, but how much to restrict it. If that is a question left open by the Constitution, then it is a question for Congress to decide. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]ACLU POLICY [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]
"The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment [as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller] that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia.Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms." --Policy #47
[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]ARGUMENTS, FACTS, QUOTES [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free[/FONT]
State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."[/FONT]
The Second Amendment to the Constitution
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]"Since the Second Amendment. . . applies only to the right of the State to [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]
maintain a militia and not to the individual's right to bear arms, there
can be no serious claim to any express constitutional right to possess a firearm." [/FONT]
MachZer0 said:A simple reading of the Federalist papers, particularly #46 would dispel the rumor that I am erroeously ignoring the militia portion of the amendment
All based on misinterpretations of the Constitution
MachZer0 said:A true leftist philosophy. I wouldn't be surprised to see the ACLU push for confiscation of guns
[/left]
The ACLJ promotes a true fascist philosophy. I wouldn't be surprised to see it push for the banning of all religion except for Robertsonism.MachZer0 said:A true leftist philosophy. I wouldn't be surprised to see the ACLU push for confiscation of guns
[/LEFT]
Why?MachZer0 said:A true leftist philosophy. I wouldn't be surprised to see the ACLU push for confiscation of guns
[/left]
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?