wrong as usual. You made the ridiculous claim that Trump wants to prevent transgendered types from having second amendment rights by your outcome based nonsense that if Trump doesn't think people with gender mental issues are fit to serve in the REGULAR military-that means they cannot keep and bear arms which is absolute bullshit because serving in the REGULAR military has absolutely nothing to do-whatsoever, with even your warped understanding of the second amendment. Many people can serve in militia who are not eligible to serve in the REGULAR armed forces
He knows. Like every other garden-variety troll, he suffers from deficit of attention disorder. This compels him to make the most asinine statements he can so that someone actually pays attention to him. Sad and desperate, it's the best he can do. Your charity is generous.
I see you won't explain what your silly point was-that Trump wants to deny transgendered types the "right to keep and bear arms" but it is obvious that you wrongly assert that "keeping and bearing arms" is the right to serve in the regular army
That is not what I said. IF we are to assume that the 2nd A includes SOME individual right to "keep and bear arms" related to "defend the security of a free state". THAT would be the one that might conceivably fit the bill. Of course, one would have to assume that the framers even intended to frame ANY individual right in the 2nd A... For which there is no evidence. So IF we followed all those assumptions, it would mean Trump denied it to transgenders. Therefore, your statement that the 2nd A enshrines some "individual right" is not totally out of the question if we were to frame it under the above point of view. So it's like a little bit of mental exercise but completely off topic. And not even a particularly interesting one. Only an attempt to find any sort of sense, however unlikely, in YOUR claim. Shouldn't require more than one or two posts to exhaust everything that can be said about it. However, since you are incapable of rebutting the subject that IS the topic of this thread, it's clear to anybody WHY you prefer to latch into that one. Refer back to THIS post if you have any other questions, because I can think of nothing further to add to the above. Nor would I have any interest in wasting my time on it.
so many evasive words to try to justify what was an idiotic claim when the commander in chief says he doesn't want transgendered individuals to serve in the military, that in NO WAY is a valid argument that he wants to deny them their second amendment rights. . You got caught telling a bald faced fib and others noted that too
The fact that what you say is untrue sort of undermines your case. Yes they could. Your point is wrong. What do you think the Continental Army was? I am correcting all your untrue claims, of which there are many. Challenging your untrue claims is quite useful. It prevents your untrue claims from misleading people who do not know any better. Nope. Upholding the Constitution is not legislating. He made no such admission. No it wasn't. They could have had a standing army had they wanted to do so.
Yes they did. The Second Amendment clearly says that a well-regulated militia is necessary. Yes it does. The Second Amendment forbids any infringement of the right to keep and bear arms.
Agreeing with you is untrue? This is what I said I didn't disagree with... You need to make up your mind whether or not you agree with YOURSELF. Because what this quote says is pretty much LITERALLY what the 2nd A says.
so lets cut through the weasel words and the evasion-tell us what the second amendment means. Most of us assert it means that federal restrictions on citizens possessing firearms are unconstitutional.
At heart, it prohibits congress from making law. It does not enable congress to make any law. Which is to say it grants congress no power.
Gladly.... Here you go! http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/history-101-why-the-2nd-amendment.586263/ Not according to the most prominent linguists in the country who analyzed the text as written. Which is explained here http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/english-102-to-keep-and-bear-arms.586083/ Nor according to historians either, whose research is explained in the first link above.
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Those linguists concluded that the 2nd amendment is not a prohibition against US gov't legislation? What do they make of the term "shall not"?
I did. It's about what linguists think "keep and bear" means. But it seems they missed the obvious fact that the 2nd is a prohibition on the US government making any law whatsoever.
But it seems they missed the obvious fact that the 2nd is a prohibition on the US government making any law whatsoever.
No. They didn't. But it's irrelevant. The US cannot make a law against "keep and bear arms". Linguists simply explain what "keep and bear arms" meant to any average educated person at the time it was written. Read it! Spoiler alert: it didn't mean what you have been told it meant.
They can't make any law against keeping arms. They can't make any law against bearing arms. They can't make any law against keeping and bearing arms. They can't make a law against carrying arms in a personal capacity. They can't make a law against carrying arms in a military capacity. So many laws they can't make.
He fails to understand (or more likely admit) that the founders never intended that the new federal government have any power over private citizens' use, ownership etc of small arms.
where did the federal government gain the power to enact any law regulating what PRIVATE citizens can own, use, keep and bear (and I reject your bullshit that "keep and bear" only means for military purposes)
