[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Concession? What concession?
[/quote]
It was low blow on his part to put words into your mouth.
Don’t fall for it.
[/quote]
JP does not need a cheering section.
I am cheering him on…he just doesn’t know it yet.[/quote]
Absolutely he doesn’t.
And I apologize to J for posting that.
I admit I could not control my impulse: it is a strong reaction I have when I perceive the “putting words into my mouth” strategy, and I could not help it.
I apologize to JP.
I do have respect for my elders if they are acting in good faith and not just arguing out of compulsion to “win” and be “right” and “prove you’re wrong”, as I have perceived it is a cultural practice in America ( a waste of time for me so I refuse to be sucked in ).
And I grant you, Dr.S, may have some master plan for polishing him off as part of your schooling him, being you are his elder. However, I have to say you are far from being transparent.
Edit: I wrote this before seeing your last post where there is more clarity.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Concession? What concession?
[/quote]
It was low blow on his part to put words into your mouth.
Don’t fall for it.
[/quote]
JP does not need a cheering section.
I am cheering him on…he just doesn’t know it yet.[/quote]
Absolutely he doesn’t.
And I apologize to J for posting that.
I admit I could not control my impulse: it is a strong reaction I have when I perceive the “putting words into my mouth” strategy, and I could not help it.
I apologize to JP.
I do have respect for my elders if they are acting in good faith and not just arguing out of compulsion to “win” and be “right” and “prove you’re wrong”, as I have perceived it is a cultural practice in America ( a waste of time for me so I refuse to be sucked in ).
And I grant you, Dr.S, may have some master plan for polishing him off as part of your schooling him, being you are his elder. However, I have to say you are far from being transparent.
Edit: I wrote this before seeing your last post where there is more clarity.[/quote]
Please dome this favor and remember: I am schooling nobody… We are walking together.
[quote]Alpha F wrote:
There is a difference between a person being unable to see how a thing is possible, versus, it “cannot” be so, let alone as a definitive statement that needs no elaboration though no proof or really even evidence was provided in the first place.
[/quote]
So the use of absolutes is frowned upon in your presence. Noted.
In point of fact - 44 of 50 states that support exactly what my contention has been from the beginning. There are no SCOTUS decisions on the subject because none have been brought before the court. Even gun-control advocates readily admit that the second amendment referred state militias and not the singular militia cited in USC 10-13.
[quote]Dissent opinions carry no legal weight as precedent or to prove meaning. You are relying on the losing argument.
[/quote]
I used one of the dissenting opinions from the most recent SCOTUS decision wrt the 2nd Amendment to illustrate that even the anti-gun side understands that it does not point to a singular militia, but the state militias.
[quote]Why don’t you tell us how your word parsing changes gun rights?
[/quote]
Show me where I ever said that it does. My argument in this thread has been solely over which militia the 2nd is referring to. I, along with 44 states and a few SCOTUS justices think it refers to the states. You say otherwise with no proof or support for your contention
Everything that comes after the second comma in the 2nd Amendment is far more important than anything before it. That is without question.
[quote]And the USC defines militia as I and others here have been saying, not as you say.
[/quote]
The USC describes The Militia Of The United States. The second Amendment is referring to state militias.
[quote]I would have spoken more precisely though in saying that you mis-paraphrased rather than misquoted, though mis-paraphrased is not a word. What you wrote was:
[quote]drunkpig wrote:
“Well regulated” refers to the working order of a militia. A state militia. THEIR right to keep and bear arms that are functional and well maintained shall not be infringed.
[/quote]
While what the Constitution actually reads is, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
[/quote]
That was a poor choice of words on my part, and I apologize for that. I should have been more accurate and careful. What I meant was the first half of the amendment is referring to the State militias. The second half of the amendment is all about the individual.
[/quote]
I understand you do not accept the authority of the ruling of the Supreme Court and wish to stand for the losing side.
You and the few justices and the entire system you depend on, are very welcome to your opinion.
Now, then, withdrawing from field of battle does not constitute surrender. I have said my piece. I have other pressing issues, among them a lad with a complex case of Ewing’s sarcoma. He will die or he might live (without a humerus and a lung), but i will try to bring him back to able-bodied status.
At which time I will inform him that he is part of the unorganized militia.
[/quote]
May our Father bless your efforts. And yes, definitely inform him of his rights and duties.
JP does not need a cheering section.
I am cheering him on…he just doesn’t know it yet.[/quote]
Absolutely he doesn’t.
And I apologize to J for posting that.
I admit I could not control my impulse: it is a strong reaction I have when I perceive the “putting words into my mouth” strategy, and I could not help it.
I apologize to JP.
[/quote]
No apology necessary.
I actually understand the good Dr’s point of view, and I know why it’s there. It’s been forced on him over the course of decades
That same forced perception of the militia has a lot of people confused. The militia is the people. We are not a fringe group preparing for a government overthrow. We are the group of people who should be most trusted to defend the people: We the People
They somehow think, through those decades of brainwashing, that the government has a better idea of how to defend us and our interests better than We the People ourselves. The have been taught to fear their neighbors, because that gentleman you have known for 20 years may snap crazy and kill you at any moment. They have been taught that anyone with a gun is a murderer, just the same as anyone with a penis is a rapist. Anyone who prepares their homes and families for the possibility of disaster is exactly the same the ridicule-worthy ‘prepper’ who turns his house into a fortress out of paranoia.
Worst of all, the have been brainwashed into believing that anyone who doesn’t depend and rely on the government is a fool.
History plainly shows that those who do rely on the government are the fools.
A truck pulls up in front of your house, and six men walk onto your property and threaten your household. You grab a rifle and confront the men in your yard.
Would you rather your neighbors take up arms and come to your aid, or just call the cops on your behalf? The simple fact that the officer will DISARM YOU before doing anything else should be all the information you need to make a common-sense decision. Then factor in the evident community backing you have, and you end up with six criminals who have written off their plan to carry out whatever evil they intended, in your neighborhood, as a suicide mission.
THAT is the militia.
This post is not directed at you, Alpha. I’m sure you already understand it.
I think people forget the phrasing of the 2nd Amendment, and it’s significance relating to who is in the militia.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
“The right of the people to keep and bear arms” is simply a RE-PHRASING of the first statement, “a well-regulated militia”. The militia is dependent on, and equal to, our right to bear weaponry.
I think a simpler, clearer, and just as accurate way of stating the Amendment is (Don’t burn me at the stake please) “A well regulated militia, which is the right of the people to bear Arms, being necessary to the security of a free State, and shall not be infringed.”
When the second amendment says a “well regulated Militia” I wonder if they thought America would have a professional military the way we do . And possibly they thought we would always have a rag tag bunch to defend from foreign invaders rather than the preemptive force we have at present.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
When the second amendment says a “well regulated Militia” I wonder if they thought America would have a professional military the way we do . And possibly they thought we would always have a rag tag bunch to defend from foreign invaders rather than the preemptive force we have at present.[/quote]
While I’m sure they didn’t see us having a military AS big as the one we have, based on the armies that other countries (like, you know, Britain) had at the time, they certainly would’ve expected us to build up a force along those lines.
It is also rather obvious, because if they DIDN’T expect us to have a “formal” military, then the whole “right to bear arms” thing would be less of a big deal. The military/police force is what the citizens would have to be able to defend AGAINST in case of tyranny.
[quote]Alpha F wrote:
I hope the American “justices” will not become brainwashed into this version of “justice”:
So much for a “civilized” society.[/quote]
Interesting situations there. I MIGHT be able to see why they wouldn’t agree with our version of justice for a hacker, but for the rapist…dang. Then again, isn’t it Europe in general, and England in particular, where you’ll get more time for smoking pot than for raping someone?
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
When the second amendment says a “well regulated Militia” I wonder if they thought America would have a professional military the way we do . And possibly they thought we would always have a rag tag bunch to defend from foreign invaders rather than the preemptive force we have at present.[/quote]
People knew what standing armies were, and what they lead too even back then.
It isn’t like our current military position is new to the world. The technology is, the position and policy isn’t.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
When the second amendment says a “well regulated Militia” I wonder if they thought America would have a professional military the way we do . And possibly they thought we would always have a rag tag bunch to defend from foreign invaders rather than the preemptive force we have at present.[/quote]
“In time of actual war, great discretionary powers are constantly given to the Executive Magistrate. Constant apprehension of War, has the same tendency to render the head too large for the body. A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.”
~James Madison~
EDIT: All answers above show an excellent understanding of history and American thought.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
When the second amendment says a “well regulated Militia” I wonder if they thought America would have a professional military the way we do . And possibly they thought we would always have a rag tag bunch to defend from foreign invaders rather than the preemptive force we have at present.[/quote]
Things were different in their time. Somebody could just pick up their musket and go off to fight a war in their day, some guy can’t pick up his rifle and fly off to Afghanistan to help out now no matter how tacticool he or his rifle may be. A well trained and regulated militia would ensure a better soldier than a man that just goes out hunting and doesn’t have any real military training.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
So do you think the second amendment means we should have a militia that is independent from our government [/quote]
This was just covered within the last couple pages, and yes.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
So do you think the second amendment means we should have a militia that is independent from our government [/quote]
This was just covered within the last couple pages, and yes.[/quote]
I read back a page , other than a quote from Tench Coxe what gives you the impression that our founding fathers thought our GOV. was supposed to be in check by an armed populace ? And if that was the intention who is to organize this militia ?
looked like an interesting character . it is like he morphed in his career