Wanted: Meaningful response backed by a sound argument

Why do you split hairs?

 

Demonstrating that someone made a claim they obviously knew was false is not splitting hairs.

 

And now you have eloquently stated the purpose of the 2A. To ensure there is always sufficient arms to maintain the security of the free state even if the government of that state is unable (or unwilling) to provide arms to the people for that purpose.

Private ownership on a broad scale is the only way to ensure that end. Well done.

 

Babble much? You're THE ONLY ONE to bring them up. I'm talking exclusively about one thing: the text of the 2nd A, as it would have been understood by any moderately educated person. I don't give a crap about Acts. They have nothing to do with my argument or my point.

I think I have said that I am only talking about the 2nd A no less than four times... so, if you want to go on rambling about "acts", go right ahead. But you're on your own.

 

If you want to accuse somebody of saying something false, and you don't want to end up looking foolish, it's a good idea to say WHAT is false.

I see from this and the rest of your posts that you have now fallen back to just doing this, and repeating "that's false... that's false" over and over. With no counterarguments. Obviously you don't have any. So.... thanks for playing.

 

I can see I’m the only one in our conversation who really understands the issue. Now that everyone else is also keenly aware of that, I’m happy to let you carry on with your arguments that undermine the credibility of the gun control lobby and their unaware supporters.

 

Private gun ownership no longer serves that purpose. It actually undermines it. A high level of gun violence results in less security in a free state.

 

I didn't accuse you of anything -- I stated a fact.

Your statement that the 2nd says, EXACTLY, "the right to keep and bear arms as part of a well regulated militia in order to defend the security of a free state." is false.
You know your statement is false because, as you took a long time to research the validity of your arguments, you know the 2nd does not say this.

Thus, you made (another) statement you know is false.

After demonstrating your claims to be false, there's no need to provide a counterargument.

See, if you have a point to make, that's your burden; when you cannot meet your burden, you argument fails on its own and there's no need to counter it.

As it took you a long time to research the validity of your arguments, why are you reduced to making statements you know are false?

 

You cannot demonstrate this to be true.

 

Can you document “gun violence” being a concern of the legislators and others who crafted the 2A and other law like the Militia Acts? Can you provide any evidence violence within the free state was of more concern to the crafters of the 2A than dangers that could result in a less free state?

Can you offer any specific metric by which criminal gun use threatens the freedom of our state other than you using it as justification to violate the 2A?

 

A high level of violence undermines the security of the state. But unless you're suggesting that guns cause violence, then reducing guns does not reduce violence, and thus the presence of guns does not undermine the security of the state.

...unless, of course, the security of the state requires the state to abuse those who may be armed and who may use guns to violently resist the abusive state. Then it most certainly could be argued that guns cause violence that undermines the security of the state... tho it would be more accurate in this case to say that the state is causing the violence by abusing its citizens and therefore undermining itself. Surely thats not the point you're trying to make though... I can't imagine the level of security a legitimate state would require that would morally or ethically excuse the abuse of its citizens. Surely thats not what you're promoting tho

Given this, it stands to reason that a state that is undermined by civilian gun ownership is not a legitimiate state and SHOULD be undermined by civilian gun ownership.

The UN of course would disagree, having said on the subject: "Civilian firearm ownership undermines the legitimate power monopoly of the state."

So, it really comes down to this simple question- is it legitimate for the state to have a power monopoly over its citizens? If no, then according to the logic of the UN, civilian firearm ownership only undermines illegitimate states. Thats a good thing as far as I'm concerned.

 

Have any of your guns ever been used in a well-regulated militia? Be honest.

 

Guns were more primitive and thus less of a threat to public safety in the 18th Century. Regardless, privately kept guns nowadays are used in criminal activities but they are not used in a well-regulated militia to secure a free state. There simply is no connection between private gun ownership and the explicitly stated purpose of the Second Amendment anymore.

 

Again, please provide evidence the crime rate has relevance to the 2A, the Militia Acts of 1792, 1903, or 1916. Actually any reference in US Constitution or Law to provisions of any Bill of Rights amendment or Act being dependent on proliferation of criminal behavior in a state or federal jurisdiction. Go...

When you are tired of looking for the above try this. Supply us with text of any Act or other legislation nullifying the provisions of the 1903 “Dick Act” clearly defining two branches of the militia—the organized and unorganized. Also supply text of any legislation removing the right of any state that so wishes to form state defense forces that are not under federal control from members of the unofficial militia.

Then maybe since you seem to believe firearm ownership is directly tied to militia service you can provide text to legislation which divests unofficial militia members of their arms when they are no longer of the appropriate age to serve.

Finally, if the 2A is predicated on level of crime, why wasn’t it repealed after the spate of firearm crime caused by prohibition?

 

It MEANS that. And, other than "you're lying" and similar, and after no less than ten posts, you have not addressed anything I've said. So why should I bother with you?

Answer: I shouldn't.

If you open a thread and are not prepared to debate facts, opinions and evidence that don't support your claims, but just grasp at straws instead, why do you open it in the first place?

 

Thank you for the admission that you cannot demonstrate your claim to be true..

 

And yet, George Washington would be more than happy for all his potential militiamen, and all his frontier homesteaders, to have an AR15 or two or three in the house.

There is no explicitly stated purpose of the 2nd, other than to protect the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

 

Ah. First you said "says" and now you say "means". You also used the term "exactly"
You NOW claim that the 2nd "means" :the right to keep and bear arms as part of a well regulated militia in order to defend the security of a free state.
You know you cannot demonstrate this to be true.
And thus, you made a claim you know to be false.
As it took you a long time to research the validity of your arguments, why are you reduced to making statements you know are false?

 

So what part of a background check will be used against you?

Misdemeanors?
Parking tickets?
Suspension of DL?
Bad credit?

 

You are fully aware of the fact Scalia said no such thing - as such, you know you statement is false.

As It took you a long time to research the validity of your arguments, why are you reduced to making statements you know are false?

 

"Means" is one of the meanings of "say" in a colloquial conversation. As in "the law says that you cannot go over the speed limit" That doesn't mean that the law literally says "you cannot go over the speed limit" Looks like we should check your proficiency in English before carrying on with these discussions. I'm not interested in teaching you basic English vocabulary

 

I now understand, from your previous post, that you have a problem with the colloquial meaning of the word "say". But you'll have to solve that on your own. Can't help you there. Maybe I can, but I'm not interested in helping you with basic English vocabulary.

 

Nothing here changes the fact you know you cannot demonstrate sound of your claimed meaning of the 2nd - ":the right to keep and bear arms as part of a well regulated militia in order to defend the security of a free state." - to be true.
And thus, you made a claim you know to be false.

Unsupportable nonsense.
Nothind you have posted in this, or any other, topic constitutes "proof" of your claim in any way; the posts you have offered to this effect were dismissed for the reasons provided.
Disagree?
Cite / copy / paste.
But you won't... because you know you can't.

As it took you a long time to research the validity of your arguments, why are you reduced to making statements you know are false?

 

All mine are. According to US Code, I am part of the militia. I also have no criminal record, so I am well regulated.

Supposing you don't think 'the militia' as defined by US Code is 'well' enough regulated, what additional laws would you like to see enacted to apply to all males between 18-45 who are citizens or intend to become citizens (and effectively all other adults who consider themselves the militia, since we dont exclude them)?

 

If you have a point to make, that's your burden
Thank you for your admission that you cannot been your burden of proof.
As it took you a long time to research the validity of your arguments, why are you reduced to making statements you know you cannot prove?

Fact remains:

You are fully aware of the fact Scalia said no such thing - as such, you know you statement is false.
As it took you a long time to research the validity of your arguments, why are you reduced to making statements you know are false?