DarkBrandon0111 said:

---

Why do conservatives leave out the "well regulated militia" part? Your average joe going to a gun shop is not a well regulated militia. You can't claim that liberals hate the constitution when it is written so vague that it can be interpreted in multiple ways.

---

Vague?

Only to Herpa Derps.

I'd also like to posit that we have a second enemy of well, freedoms in general. Yes, the left is an enemy of the country, but we know that and they are the devil we know. We also have another one, I have met many many folks who are most pro gun but also quite apathetic to causes in which they are seemingly unaffected by. Folks, this is one of the most dangerous undermining mindset that I've seen in some time. It's important to remember that "I don't believe in god so I don't care about church and state" or "I don't have a bump stock, so it's ok if they ban them" is a horrible HORRIBLE mindset. It is the reason we are where we are.

I've said it before but I'm going to say it again…we havnt had enough hardship recently to fully appreciate the need for these things. The left just doesn't care, and generally, the right doesn't understand either but will stand to keep it becasue they've read enough history to get it. All of this is a pencil whip away from disappearing and one generation away from being a history lesson.

Here's another way of looking at the 2A.

When the Constitution and Bill of Rights were drafted, our leaders were coming from a position that this grand experiment in freedom and liberty, as a nation state, would only work if each member state were committed to the shared values and culture of the founding documents. And..........the central govt would have limited power and resources, which was the whole point. Basically a gentlemen's agreement that each state would do their part to maintain the security and sovereignty of the Union.

The 2A basically establishes said rights and is also a directive to the member states that the security and sovereignty of the Union is contingent on the states regulating their own militias and enabling their residents to keep and bear arms. In other words, if we are going to survive each state has to pony up.

DarkBrandon0111 said:

---

Why do conservatives leave out the "well regulated militia" part? Your average joe going to a gun shop is not a well regulated militia. You can't claim that liberals hate the constitution when it is written so vague that it can be interpreted in multiple ways.

---

So damn ignorant.

DarkBrandon0111 said:

---

"Framers Intent" is massive cope. The framers hardly agreed on anything which was why the constitution was written so vaguely. They had to compromise. Every framer had their own interpretation and there is no objective way to look at the constitution.

---

Completely and totally WRONG. The Federalist Papers spell out what was intended. The reason the concept of "original intent" exists is because it's the most reliable way to interpret legal documents. Meaning of words often changes over time, and so we look at what those who wrote the law intended AT THAT TIME. You won't find a single other area of law where liberals try to argue that the document DOES NOT mean what it says. It's mental gymnastics by liberals, as usual.

DarkBrandon0111 said:

---

"Framers Intent" is massive cope. The framers hardly agreed on anything which was why the constitution was written so vaguely. They had to compromise. Every framer had their own interpretation and there is no objective way to look at the constitution.

---

You find a single contemporaneous writing by the Founders that argues for gun confiscation and then you can talk.

Quote:

---

Why do Liberals hate the Constitution. Gun Related.

---

The left finds the Constitution "intent" will cover things like abortion and gay marriage..
But cannot stomach the Constitution when it explicitly states the right to bear arms...

It is reminiscent of "new age" churches that read in all sorts of "intents" in the bible and ignore explicit statements set out in the 10 commandments.

"If Liberals interpreted the second amendment like they do the first, then gun ownership would be mandatory."-Michael Kinsley

DarkBrandon0111 said:

---

Why do conservatives leave out the "well regulated militia" part? Your average joe going to a gun shop is not a well regulated militia. You can't claim that liberals hate the constitution when it is written so vague that it can be interpreted in multiple ways.

---

People always speak in half truths or leave out important context when the most important things is being right or beating the other side not the actual context of your argument. Not just a right thing but more so a human thing. As complex as humans are once you group them together they become less complex and more susceptible to group think. Acknowledging some of the more open points in the constitution takes away the ability to make it up as you go as we see in modern day times with some of the previous Supreme Court decisions.

DarkBrandon0111 said:

---

Why do conservatives leave out the "well regulated militia" part? Your average joe going to a gun shop is not a well regulated militia. You can't claim that liberals hate the constitution when it is written so vague that it can be interpreted in multiple ways.

---

Here is why history not being taught properly in schools nowadays is a big problem. If you know ANYTHING whatsoever about the founding fathers, what in God's green earth gives you the impression that they wanted the government to control gun ownership? Or that you had to be part of a govt run militia to own weapons? That would make zero f-ing sense and would go against so much of their writings and pretty much everything they stood for. "Tree of liberty etc". Hell John Adams was saying people should use guns as part of their personal festivities to celebrate Independence Day every year.

Quote:

---

"It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires, and illuminations, from one end of this continent to the other, from this time forward forever more."

---

Liberals are complete clowns. "Hey future generations, we strongly recommend you wipe out any tyrannical government that should possibly arise in the future, but if you want to own any guns, you need to be part of said government run militia mmmkay".

Y'all just showcase your absolute stupidity every time you bring up the militia stuff. Private citizens had MF CANNONS back then.

Wycliffe_03 said:

---

DarkBrandon0111 said:

---

Why do conservatives leave out the "well regulated militia" part? Your average joe going to a gun shop is not a well regulated militia. You can't claim that liberals hate the constitution when it is written so vague that it can be interpreted in multiple ways.

---

Here is why history not being taught properly in schools nowadays is a big problem. If you know ANYTHING whatsoever about the founding fathers, what in God's green earth gives you the impression that they wanted the government to control militias? That would make zero f-ing sense and would go against so much of their writings. "Tree of liberty etc". Hell John Adams was saying people should use guns as part of their personal festivities to celebrate Independence Day every year.

Quote:

---

"It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires, and illuminations, from one end of this continent to the other, from this time forward forever more."

---

Liberals are complete clowns. "Hey future generations, we strongly recommend you wipe out any tyrannical government that should possibly arise in the future, but if you want to own any guns , you need to be part of a government run militia mmmkay".

Y'all just showcase your absolute stupidity every time you bring up the militia stuff. Private citizens had MF CANNONS back then.

---

The Continental Army also had to rent war ships from private individuals during the Revolutionary War.

DarkBrandon0111 said:

---

Why do conservatives leave out the "well regulated militia" part? Your average joe going to a gun shop is not a well regulated militia. You can't claim that liberals hate the constitution when it is written so vague that it can be interpreted in multiple ways.

---

I'll make this as simple as I can for you to contemplate. Although I'll admit, I don't think you're open to looking at things logically. You're only capable of regurgitating the propaganda you've been fed. First, "regulated", in old English terms, meant supplied, maintained or armed, not controlled. We'll get to that in the question I'll propose to you. Many words have been coopted in modern day to mean something completely different than they were original intended. Let's say for the sake of your arguement, the regulated meant controlled or limited. How do you reconcile that with the last line of, "shall not be infringed"? The two would completely contradict each other. They don't, they compliment each other. I don't think conservatives are the ones not looking at the whole Amendment. You are trying to cherry pick a word and redefine it. Hth


"THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"!

I don't hate guns

What's up with the recent blight of new sock posters showing up here armed with mindless leftist pabulum to spout all over these boards? There's some troll thread on a congress member and the stiff on this thread that's trying to turn a part of the constitution into something that it isn't (and, by the way, that the supreme court explained what it means in great detail).

The constitution is not a word of God (nothing is).
So constitution can be changed, it is just a book of words that men made up.
So as time goes by, it is amended to keep up with modern life.
So nothing wrong if it is changed.

infinity ag said:

---

The constitution is not a word of God (nothing is).
So constitution can be changed, it is just a book of words that men made up.
So as time goes by, it is amended to keep up with modern life.
So nothing wrong if it is changed.

---

It was made to be VERY hard to change for a reason. Even way back then they knew that there would eventually be some moronic ****tards that wanted to change things. Luxkily, they had enough foresight to make it difficult.

Ag87H2O said:

---

The Second Amendment is all that stands between the US becoming another socialist state like China. You don't have to look any further than Australia over the past 3 years to see what the leftists would do here.

---

Just like it isn't guns who kill people, people kill people, it's not going to be guns that prevent us from becoming another socialist state like China. It's going to have to be the people who do that. Take a good look around. This isn't the same country that kicked some ass in WWII.

We are well on our way to becoming another socialist state like China. We've allowed Marxist enemies of the state to steal an election, and as they continue to decimate this country nothing is done. We're just going to wait around and hope things get straightened out by voting for a spineless GOP at some point years in the future after already seeing that they can and will steal elections.


WAKE UP!

Ask yourself, under what circumstances will what you're saying is going to happen actually happen. Because we keep passing those milestones and nothing is happening.

Same reason king Louis XVI would have banned pitchforks and the guillotine if he had the chance to go back in time.

infinity ag said:

---

The constitution is not a word of God (nothing is).
So constitution can be changed, it is just a book of words that men made up.
So as time goes by, it is amended to keep up with modern life.
So nothing wrong if it is changed.

---

I don't believe I've read a more ignorant take! Congratulations!

The principles of the constitution are unchanged. The founders were very learned men, you not so much.

Urban Ag said:

---

Here's another way of looking at the 2A.

When the Constitution and Bill of Rights were drafted, our leaders were coming from a position that this grand experiment in freedom and liberty, as a nation state, would only work if each member state were committed to the shared values and culture of the founding documents. And..........the central govt would have limited power and resources, which was the whole point. Basically a gentlemen's agreement that each state would do their part to maintain the security and sovereignty of the Union.

The 2A basically establishes said rights and is also a directive to the member states that the security and sovereignty of the Union is contingent on the states regulating their own militias and enabling their residents to keep and bear arms. In other words, if we are going to survive each state has to pony up.

---

Well said, but I think you could take it to a narrower view. If we are going to survive each person (people) has to pony up.