(Mar 26, 2018 08:50 AM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ]You do realize how awful our drug problem would be if we made meth and heroin legal don't you?
Guns aren't legal for use in crimes. Nor do meth or heroin have positive uses, like self-defense.
Some day you need to learn how to reason.
(Mar 26, 2018 06:05 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ]There is no constitutional right to have a gun. The framers said the people's right to bear arms shall not be infringed BECAUSE of the need to maintain a well-regulated militia. They had no standing army back then, so citizens could be called to battle at any time. Nowadays the only well-regulated militia is the National Guard and the U.S. Military forces, who ofcourse should have guns and be trained in using them. Citizens no longer have the responsibility for this and therefore no need for guns. It is telling that at the NRA headquarters there is a sign with the Second Amendment quoted on it EXCEPT for the militia clause. That tells you immediately how they are misinterpreting it. They essentially cherry picked one phrase out of its surrounding context to support their financially-driven cause.
Who regulates the militia? The National Guard and US Military are regulated by the government. The same government the founders wrote the second amendment to safeguard the people against. Try reading the Federalist Papers. The same government that dropped the ball in Parkland, many times, where existing laws would have stopped the shooter.
You also need to learn the difference between operative clauses and prefatory clauses. But it seems you prefer leftist myths to actual education.
Quote:Who regulates the militia? The National Guard and US Military are regulated by the government. The same government the founders wrote the second amendment to safeguard the people against
Oh here we go with the alt right paranoid anti-govt shit! lol! You do realize the Constitution is a by product of the American government don't you?
(Mar 26, 2018 07:10 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ]Quote:Who regulates the militia? The National Guard and US Military are regulated by the government. The same government the founders wrote the second amendment to safeguard the people against
Oh here we go with the alt right paranoid anti-govt shit! lol!
So now the founding fathers are alt-right? LOL!
(Mar 26, 2018 07:12 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ] (Mar 26, 2018 07:10 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ]Quote:Who regulates the militia? The National Guard and US Military are regulated by the government. The same government the founders wrote the second amendment to safeguard the people against
Oh here we go with the alt right paranoid anti-govt shit! lol!
So now the founding fathers are alt-right? LOL!
The militia isn't an anti-govt force. It's a govt force maintained against domestic uprisings and foreign invasions.
(Mar 26, 2018 07:14 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ]The militia isn't an anti-govt force. It's a govt force maintained against domestic uprisings and foreign invasions.
You need to learn a little history.
(Mar 26, 2018 07:18 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ] (Mar 26, 2018 07:14 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ]The militia isn't an anti-govt force. It's a govt force maintained against domestic uprisings and foreign invasions.
You need to learn a little history.
And you need to think thru the meaning of the phrase "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,".
At the time the Constitution was written, the idea of the United States having a standing army was extremely controversial. The Founders were classically educated and their fear was that just as in so much of Roman history, the army could become the muscle of tyranny.
(In ancient Rome, the emperors began as military commanders (such as Julius Caesar) who gradually dominated the civilian government of the Roman Republic through intimidation. Later Emperors were put on the throne and deposed over and over by troops who hoped that raising their own general to the throne would mean riches and special preferences for themselves.)
Closer to home, the Founders had seen the British army close up with their own eyes before and during the Revolution, essentially a professional occupying force from overseas (often German Hessian mercenaries). The overthrow of control by that army was only achieved by a popular uprising of the armed American citizenry.
Obviously a standing army was more efficient in lots of ways than a bunch of hastily called up armed civilians, since trained troops are more effective than amateurs. The Founders recognized that and approved a small standing army.
But in keeping with their philosophy of checks-and-balances, they wanted to preserve the possibility of future popular revolutions, should the need arise and those who controlled the standing army tried to impose a dictatorship. So they guaranteed the people's right to possess arms. At the same time they didn't believe that the people should be free to do anything they like with those arms, like holding up the 18th-century equivalent of banks or shooting up taverns, so it was permissible to regulate what people did with their arms.
Quote:so it was permissible to regulate what people did with their arms.
Essentially the same as what is mean't nowadays by "gun control laws." Once again...a "WELL REGULATED militia..." Not even National Guard members or U.S. Military members are allowed to take their guns home with them.
(Mar 26, 2018 07:28 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ] (Mar 26, 2018 07:18 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ] (Mar 26, 2018 07:14 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ]The militia isn't an anti-govt force. It's a govt force maintained against domestic uprisings and foreign invasions.
You need to learn a little history.
And you need to think thru the meaning of the phrase "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,".
That's obviously not a complete thought, and thus a dependent clause.
Whereas "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" is a complete thought, hence the independent clause.
Learn some grammar.
(Mar 26, 2018 08:26 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ]Quote:so it was permissible to regulate what people did with their arms.
Essentially the same as what is mean't nowadays by "gun control laws." Once again...a "WELL REGULATED militia..."
No, it's the equivalent to outlawing gun crime, which is already illegal. "Gun control" usually means restricting law abiding citizens with zero impact on criminal activity.
Surprise surprise, big, centralized government advocates like the population disarmed. Just like fascists.
Quote:Surprise surprise, big, centralized government advocates like the population disarmed. Just like fascists
Typical alt-right paranoid anti-govt paranoia.. Go hide in your arms bunker you cowardly gun freak! We'll just blow you away.