The need for a civilian militia....

yes yes, we know Iriemon, you don't believe that freedom of religion extends to Mormons, or to Jehovah's Witnesses, or to Pentecostals,or to the "Nation of Islam". You also don't believe that fourth amendment rights pertain to any property created after 1789. You also don't believe that freedom of speech, or of the press, pertains to any kind that did not exist before 1789.

For the rest of us, we know what religion, speech, press, and arms mean, and that they are not static terms.

 

Where in the hell are you getting that nonsense?

 

directly or indirectly you've done this bit a bunch of times, about how the founders would never have been okay with civilians having weapons that go "click-pew-click-pew", but since they were okay with civilians having all the military equipment of their day, there's no reason to actually believe they'd take issue with semi-auto weapons. Like I said, let's be serious, the Founder's were perfectly okay with civilians owning ships with 18 cannons, and you want to suggest it's ridiculous to think that they'd be okay with a small arm that goes, "click-pew-click-pew"? Get serious.

 

I didn't say anything about what I thought they'd think. That would be speculation. But I did point out it is speculation to claim what their position would be on automatic and even semi-automatic weapons of they type we had today.

I'm not familiar with the laws about private ownership of armed vessels, but I would guess that they permitted trading ships to be armed to ward of pirates.

Which is neither here nor there as to what they'd think about people having automatic weapons when there is not legitimate self defense need for them.

 

The rest of U.S., those not radical Lefties, have to wonder, for the Radical Left to expend so much political capital on disarming the common citizens, just what in the hell do the Radicals plan on doing to U.S.?

We know its not a safety issue, or they'd be equally, or at least similarly concerned about the other things which are statistically far more likely to result in harm.

Its a Power and Control issue, where they feel they NEED to be able to tell U.S. at the point of the gun, to do what they want... So just what the hell are they planning?

Pragmatically, for our own safety, shouldn't we just boot them from power based on that NEED alone?

-

 

Of course the pro-gun crowd will insist that the wording in the Constitution suggests that merely being a part of an armed population is the same as a militia-irrespective that they are an untrained, unorganised rabble of weekend plunkers shooting at tin cans.

 

You mean today's Liberals wouldn't chop off the fingers of slaves if we caught them trying to learn how to read, like Jefferson did?
You may have a point....
The American Revolution was the 17th revolt in the colonies, unlike the first 16, it was lead by the wealthiest men in the colonies, not to end taxation, but to bring tax revenues under their control. They adopted the slogans of equality, liberty and justice to enlist the popular opinion, but they retained slavery and class distinctions.
The thing is, the ideas were good ideas, they just needed to be perfected, and that is what we have done, we have embraced liberty and equality for all and we strive to bring about a nation based on it, realizing that we will never reach the goal, but that we can get closer to it.

 

Tench Coxe: Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every terrible implement of the soldier are the birthright of Americans. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but where, I trust in God, it will always remain, in the hands of the people.

 

Except it clearly states REGULATED militia. Not "Bunch og guys with guns".

 

Why do you feel you must falsify my posts and positions to try to make an argument?

- - - Updated - - -

Why do you feel you must falsify my posts and positions to try to make an argument?

 

Iriemon: "I'm dying to hear what those quotes say about automatic weapons." The suggestion is that 'arms' doesn't cover any significant advances in arms after 1789, because the Founders didn't know about them and didn't intend to cover them. The extension of the same reason is that Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons didn't exist in 1789, so their religions are not covered by freedom of religion, and that TV's/radios/internet didn't exist so they're not covered under freedom of the press or of speech. It's a ludicrous criticism of the orientalist interpretation.

 

No sir. That is *your* inference, and not my position of what I believe as you falsely indicated. Nor is it my implication. The implication of my statement is that the founders were not aware of, and probably never dreamed of, automatic weapons that could shoot 10 rounds a second, and therefore, to try to claim they would have had some position on it, especially in the absence of a "well regulated" militia, is simply speculation.

Once again, you are taking *your* inference and falsely asserting it as my position.

Why do you feel you must falsify my posts and positions to try to make an argument?

 

Oh, so your post was really just a comment on history devoid of any meaning. Please excuse me, I made the assumption that your post was relevant and carried actual meaning to the discussion. My bad.

 

No it wasn't.

Do you think you can make and argument without falsifying my posts and positions? Or you just don't have a argument to make without doing that?

 

If your only point was a comment on history, then I don't need to falsify anything.

Now if you don't like your posts being contextualized or understood as reasonably in context, then you could just elaborate. Be less vague.

 

They why do it?

I don't like my positions and statements and beliefs being faslely stated.

Do you think you can make and argument without falsifying my posts and positions? Or you just don't have a argument to make without doing that?

 

I didn't. I only assumed that it was intended to be relevant to the discussion, and assumed the reasonable implications of the statement. If your statement was relevant, you'd allow it to stand in context or clarify it, but you seem to be unwilling to do that, so I can only assume it's meant as it seemed, or that it was meaningless. Since you took such grave offense to the first, and refuse to do the second, I'll just assume it was meaningless and essentially off topic.

 

You didn't?

You didn't write these things?

"you don't believe that freedom of religion extends to Mormons"

"You also don't believe that fourth amendment rights pertain to any property created after 1789"

"You also don't believe that freedom of speech, or of the press, pertains to any kind that did not exist before 1789."

"you want to suggest it's ridiculous to think that they'd be okay with a small arm that goes, "click-pew-click-pew""

"directly or indirectly you've done this bit a bunch of times, about how the founders would never have been okay with civilians having weapons that go "click-pew-click-pew" ​

If you're asserting those are not false statements, they quote and link to my post where I've ever written that I "don't believe that freedom of religion extends to Mormons". Or that I "don't believe that fourth amendment rights pertain to any property created after 1789". Or that I "don't believe that freedom of speech, or of the press, pertains to any kind that did not exist before 1789." Or anything of that sort.

You "assumed" things but stated as fact that I "believed" things (which in fact I don't) I have never stated or indicated I believe, based on nothing more that *your* assumption.

You've asserted as a fact (false) things that I supposedly believe when I don't and your assertions are based on nothing more than *your* assumptions and *your* inferences.

Is that being honest to you?

 

"WELL-REGULATED" did not mean what you think it did to those who wrote it into the constitution.

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."
1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."
1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."
1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."
1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."
1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."

 

How is a mass of citizens with no training, no organization, many with no "arms", no rules or instruction for organization into military units, no state or federal support, plan, training or organization, possible a "well regulated" militia?

 

We have a militia, it's called the National Guard.
They go to the same basic military training as the regulars.

Why fix what ain't broke.

 

And I don't think that most of us have a problem with the National Guard, which is certainly a "well regulated" militia, having things like automatic weapons.

 

The Founding fathers were in favor of citizens being as well armed as individual soldiers at that time. There's no reason for that to have changed. Citizens today should have automatic rifles if they like just like a soldier might carry. Simple, logical, fact!

 

The most fascist mother (*)(*)(*)(*)ers in the country today.

 

Drones, tanks, warships, I don't give a (*)(*)(*)(*).

Legalize freedom!

- - - Updated - - -

Because when push comes to shove we know the NATIONAL guard is guarding the interests of the masters ruling this "nation" and will murder civilians in a heartbeat and are trained to do just that.