YOU made the claim that they aren't necessary any longer. Burden is entirely on you to show this to be true. You can not, and you know you can not, which is why you haven't been able to.
LOL. So you have no evidence to back your repeated claim. I have not made a claim. I have asked you to supply evidence your claim is valid. You admit militias were once necessary but claimed now they are not. You must supply some justification for the change. The burden of proof of the change is not on me, it’s on you because you made the claim. I maintain there has been no change in the reason for needing militias. Please provide the evidence that SCOTUS is mistaken in upholding individual right to ownership based on necessity of militias. I am not here to do your homework, Golem. You made a bold claim, even going so far as to malign SCOTUS, and you have zero evidence to support your opinion. Do your own homework Golem. I’ve supplied evidence militias are necessary for security of a free state. You say that is no longer the case. The burden of proof militias are no longer necessary is yours to provide because you have made the claim. You fold a lot....I bet you could make an origami pelican out of the folding you’ve done just in this thread. LOL.
You need to study basic logic. The negative is the default position. It is not reasonable to demand proof of a negative.
Great! Than the default position stands. Which is that there is NO evidence that a well regulated militia is necessary for the defense of a free state. In fact, there isn't even any evidence that a well regulate militia even EXISTS! Thanks for playing....
The default position originates with the founding documents including the 2A which clearly states: Furthermore I’ve already provided these quotes from the statesmen who crafted the Constitution and the Militia Acts. Here they are again. Now, Golem made these claims. Golem has provided NO EVIDENCE to support these claims, while I have provided voluminous evidence for militias being necessary. Golem has provided NO EVIDENCE militias are no longer necessary. The burden of proof is on Golem, not anyone else because Golem has made the claim. Golem did not research his position. Golem has NO EVIDENCE to support his opinions. Golem is asking OTHERS to do his research for him. Golem cannot support his point. Golem’s actions in this thread are in direct conflict with his statements in his sig line. Please share a pic of your origami pelicans. You should have a whole pod of them by now. LOL
This is what happens when someone-usually due to a political agenda, wants to harass or punish gun owners and sees the Second Amendment as an obstacle in their way. So they work backwards from the language of the second amendment and pretend that the founders really didn't think free citizens should be armed. Its completely idiotic for several reasons including 1) the historical context-free men used their own arms to rebel against the British 2) the nature of the frontier required men to be armed constantly 3) the founders believed that free men enjoyed NATURAL rights that existed from the dawn of time. One of those rights was the right of self defense and the second amendment was intended to guarantee that right. which is why the Cruikshank court held that the right guaranteed in the second amendment was not CREATED by the constitution but merely recognized Gun banners would have you believe that a right the founders saw man as having since the beginning of his existence, really was a right that ONLY would vest if you were Part of a GOVERNMENTAL organization known as the militia. Now how can a right exist from the dawn of time, if it requires membership in a governmentally controlled entity to vest?
Your quotes prove that early in our country's history, the founding fathers valued militias. The point on the OP is that that's exactly what they were referring to in the 2nd A. And nothing more. So you have been posting without even understanding what this thread is about Given your history of admiration for pseudoscience, I wouldn't expect you to understand that demanding evidence of a negative is not usually a reasonable expectation. However... here it is.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Armed_Forces
You made a positive claim, that militias are no longer necessary. You bear the sole burden of showing this to be true. You of course know you can not, which is why you haven't and can't.
The US doesn't have a well-regulated militia (except for the National Guard). If you don't like it then you're free to get out there and lobby your elected representatives to change things. Tell them you want to be part of a well-regulated militia and make a persuasive argument about why this is necessary for the security of a free state.
The existence of a standing Army is one main reason the founders provided for continued existence of militias. That point was made quite clear in the quotes from the founders I provided. If you ever do decide to actually research this subject there is more content in the Federalist Papers showing original intent of militias was to be a restraint on exercise of federal power through standing armies. You made a claim something changed. Asking for evidence of that change is not demanding evidence of a negative. LOL You can not provide evidence of that change you predicate your argument on because there has been no change. A strong standing army is a function of government the founders explicitly stated militias were to counteract. Please see again just a sample of previously presented evidence from me. You are so easy to manipulate into providing evidence that supports my position and refutes your own because you do not do your research. If you had any knowledge of the subject you would have known standing armies are one of the main reasons militias are necessary for the security of a free state. I have repeatedly shown militias are necessary to the security of a free state. I have shown evidence existence of standing armies is one reason for militias to remain in perpetuity. Now your thread has been shown to be a complete and utter fraud with your posting of evidence that is diametrically opposed to your original premise. I think it’s cute you only have one defense when you make demonstrably false claims. When you make false claims on matters of science your only defense is to call the opposing evidence pseudoscience. When you start to call historical facts on Constitutional matters pseudoscience, we all laugh at the absurdity. Of course we all know such a defense on your part is simply appeal to the stone fallacy.
The underlying right that the second amendment was intended to ratify and cement into our jurisprudential fabric was the natural right of self defense. As long as the need for self defense exists, the second amendment is completely relevant. The reasons why 99% of those who want to revisit or eliminate the second amendment are leftists are easy to understand. To a leftist, most rights and responsibilities should be outsourced and controlled by the ever wise and beneficent government: including self defense. Owning a weapon for self defense is a POSITIVE statement that you don't trust the government to properly execute providing for your own self defense. And the leftists find that disturbing.
The word "no" should have given you a clue as to whether that's a positive or a negative claim. If you don't understand this simple fact, what expectations would we have that you would understand any of my claims that require more complex understanding of English?
The LACK of an effective standing army has been cited as one of the main reasons. Are you claiming that we don't have an effective standing army today? But, effective army or not, the 2nd A says what it says. And it refers to militias. You have not shown a single argument to show that they are necessary today. The only possible conclusion that is reasonable is that they're not (other possible conclusions would get me in trouble with the mods). Which is the default position. Occam's Razor always works against those who favor pseudo-logic and pseudo-science.
You are as bad at logic as you are at grammar. You are making the positive claim that militias are not necessary any longer. Everyone understands, including you, that you are making a positive claim about a militia not being necessary any longer. I've understood and refuted all of your other claims already.
As you have been shown, your interpretation of what the 2nd amendment says has no basis in law, or the rules of grammar. It's why your argument has lost every single time it's been tried in court.
I just posted quotes from those who crafted the Bill of the Bill of Rights saying militias are intended to restrain standing armies. I have at least 3 times presented evidence militias are intended to prevent monopoly of force by government controlled standing armies. You have provided NO evidence of any change. The burden of proof of change is on you Golem, not me. Pseudo logic would apply to you assuming change has occurred without any evidence of that change or the causes of that change. You are completely bankrupt at this point
you are the one making the positive claim that militias are no longer necessary. You've been called on this, and you are now trying to shift the burden of proof away from your positive claim. You won't be permitted to do that.
What the hell does that have to do with this topic? The second amendment states unequivocally that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. Why that is.... Whether it's because they didn't like standing armies, or because somebody made money off of them is absolutely irrelevant to this topic. You want evidence that things have changed in the last... almost 250 years? Sorry dude, that's idiotic. You're on your own. No more derailing the thread. If you want to go off-topic, open your own thread.
Yes, to maintain any credibility on PF you need to provide evidence of your claim that militias are no longer necessary for the security of a free state. Simple as that. You made the claim and have no evidence to support it. You better go do some real research. LOL
you are the one making the positive claim that militias are no longer necessary. You've been called on this, and you are now trying to shift the burden of proof away from your positive claim. You won't be permitted to do that.
Are they? I'm not worried one bit about my credibility on PF. My posts speak for themselves. What is in jeopardy is YOUR credibility. Answering the above question might save a tiny part of it.... maybe....
You are trying to shift the burden of proof away from your positive claim that militias are no longer necessary. You won’t be permitted to do that.
You made the unsubstantiated claims my friend. Every claim I’ve made is well substantiated. I suppose you have so little credibility left at this point there isn’t any reason to care. LOL I’m beginning to think you are a gun nut running a false flag operation. No matter if you are or aren’t, I’m thankful you continue to trash the anti gun agenda. You are a one man wrecking machine!
