Stop and Frisk

[rushmc 18]

kallend

******If the intent of the 2nd was for the population to be able to keep a tyrannical government in check, why do you not argue for the right to own Abrams, Howitzers, and f-18's?

I would
but I cant afford them

Some people CAN afford jet fighters. However, the armament has to be removed.

Seems to rebut your position.

You need to read back up thread BEFORE you post so you understand the context of the comments
Not that you would give a fuck

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Boom.

Rush just came up on the solution.

Lets just price guns out of food stamp range and we will be able to list them with F-18's, tanks, and nukes.

Shit he should have a right to, but can't afford.

Already ruled as unconstitutional.

Would you support the SAME act for voting? For the right of protection against illegal searches?

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

It doesn't matter what ANYBODY said outside of the words actually written into the Constitution itself.

THAT'S the problem.

How is "Shall not be infringed" a difficult statement?

And the words there are pretty clear. And while you TRY to say nothing else matters, the Supreme Court in rendering their decision LOOKED AT THE WRITINGS OF THE FOUNDERS and a whole slew of other information. So while you can try to say it does not matter, the SC looked at all of that so it must matter.

Will you just admit that you CAN'T find a single quote from a founding father supporting your position? We all know you will be unable, you could at least be honest with yourself that your position is not supported by any writing or quote from a Founding Father.

Still waiting on you to answer this:

As passed my Congress:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

As ratified by the States:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The one thing that has NO commas is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms"

Simply put your argument is the weakest possible. Anyone without an agenda and that can read English can tell you what that means.

But for fun....

A well educated electorate, being necessary for a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed.

or

A well educated electorate being necessary for a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed.

Would you claim that it only allows people who vote to own and read books?

Would you claim that only books would be allowed and nothing on a E-Reader?

Would you claim that only small books would be allowed?

YOU brought up the comma and tried to claim it meant something. I just proved to you that it does not... Further the Supreme Court has already ruled on this.... so your argument is moot.

Quote

And does THAT sound like the basis of a fair democracy?

Hmmm...

And neither is denying rights to people because you don't like them.... Does THAT sound like the basis of a fair democracy?

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Makes NO DIFFERENCE

Reading is fundamental.

You said " It gives a right to the people in order to secure the free state."

And you are wrong. It is "A" free state.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Maybe you can provide a link to ANY post where I have claimed otherwise.

Sure, you claimed it was only OPINION in this case, but have in other cases stated that only the SC *decisions* mattered.

You can't have it both ways... Claim on the SC matters till they DECIDE on something you don't like and then revert to calling it 'just an opinion'.

[kallend 1,648]

DaVinci

Quote

Makes NO DIFFERENCE

Reading is fundamental.

You said " It gives a right to the people in order to secure the free state."

And you are wrong. It is "A" free state.

You need to read back up the thread to see the context.

The PURPOSE is still to secure a STATE, not a person or people as Rush claimed. Whether it's A state or THE state makes no difference to that argument.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

You need to read back up the thread to see the context.

I have read the entire thread. you made a false claim, I called you on it.

Further, you need to read the entire thread. Blackstone has been brought up at least once and the Founding Fathers talking about Blackstone has been brought up. Blackstone was very clear that self defense is a right.

Further, in Heller the Supreme Court ruled that the 2nd covered self defense (In that case specifically with a handgun and on federal enclaves... But They did mention that banning an entire class of weapons was not kosher. And then McDonald removed the federal enclave part).

So the SC has ruled, and his interpretation of the ruling is correct and yours is not.

Reading is fundamental.

[kallend 1,648]

DaVinci

Quote

You need to read back up the thread to see the context.

I have read the entire thread. you made a false claim, I called you on it.

Further, you need to read the entire thread. Blackstone has been brought up at least once and the Founding Fathers talking about Blackstone has been brought up. Blackstone was very clear that self defense is a right.

Further, in Heller the Supreme Court ruled that the 2nd covered self defense (In that case specifically with a handgun and on federal enclaves... But They did mention that banning an entire class of weapons was not kosher. And then McDonald removed the federal enclave part).

So the SC has ruled, and his interpretation of the ruling is correct and yours is not.

Reading is fundamental.

Yes, and I am happy to replace THE with A. It makes NO DIFFERENCE to my point.

The stated reason in the Constitution, as amended, is for the security of a free state. Not for the defense of the people.

That may be the interpretation/opinion of some judges, but it is NOT what the amendment actually says.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Bignugget 0]

rushmc

*********If the intent of the 2nd was for the population to be able to keep a tyrannical government in check, why do you not argue for the right to own Abrams, Howitzers, and f-18's?

I would
but I cant afford them

Some people CAN afford jet fighters. However, the armament has to be removed.

Seems to rebut your position.

You need to read back up thread BEFORE you post so you understand the context of the comments
Not that you would give a fuck


"Actually
If you care to look back at my other posts regarding your angle

you would see I argued as the founders did.

this topic has come up when others said, "well, the founders could not have imagined the fully automatic weapons and fire power we have today". And actually, this is not true
If one takes the time to read what they wrote, part of their argument was to have the people be in possession of weapons common at that time. This concept would easily extend to today. And then the debate would become, are tanks and F18"s common. common or not, I could not afford one round for a tank

Could you?"

Isn't that the context?

It seems we have moved onto step 2, determining if they are common or not. How many makes common?

[kallend 1,648]

Bignugget

************If the intent of the 2nd was for the population to be able to keep a tyrannical government in check, why do you not argue for the right to own Abrams, Howitzers, and f-18's?

I would
but I cant afford them

Some people CAN afford jet fighters. However, the armament has to be removed.

Seems to rebut your position.

You need to read back up thread BEFORE you post so you understand the context of the comments
Not that you would give a fuck


"Actually
If you care to look back at my other posts regarding your angle

you would see I argued as the founders did.

this topic has come up when others said, "well, the founders could not have imagined the fully automatic weapons and fire power we have today". And actually, this is not true
If one takes the time to read what they wrote, part of their argument was to have the people be in possession of weapons common at that time. This concept would easily extend to today. And then the debate would become, are tanks and F18"s common. common or not, I could not afford one round for a tank

Could you?"

Isn't that the context?

It seems we have moved onto step 2, determining if they are common or not. How many makes common?

I expect you could afford an RPG or a few hand grenades, though, and they ARE infantry weapons.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 18]

The following are common for sure
Semi auto hand guns
AR15's
Shotguns

Care to argue?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

kallend

***

Quote

You need to read back up the thread to see the context.

I have read the entire thread. you made a false claim, I called you on it.

Further, you need to read the entire thread. Blackstone has been brought up at least once and the Founding Fathers talking about Blackstone has been brought up. Blackstone was very clear that self defense is a right.

Further, in Heller the Supreme Court ruled that the 2nd covered self defense (In that case specifically with a handgun and on federal enclaves... But They did mention that banning an entire class of weapons was not kosher. And then McDonald removed the federal enclave part).

So the SC has ruled, and his interpretation of the ruling is correct and yours is not.

Reading is fundamental.

Yes, and I am happy to replace THE with A. It makes NO DIFFERENCE to my point.

The stated reason in the Constitution, as amended, is for the security of a free state. Not for the defense of the people.

That may be the interpretation/opinion of some judges, but it is NOT what the amendment actually says.

You are dead ass wrong
The Federalist papers prove this
It IS what the Constitutions says
In the language as used by the founders
But again
You dont give a fuck what the truth is
YOUR interpretation is what is flawed
Live with it
Cause you can not prove otherwise

I can, however, PROVE my argument
As demonstrated by the QUOTES provided

Man up John
You are wrong

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 1,648]

You must be thinking of the English Bill of Rights of 1689 which states "Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence".

However , the wording of the 2nd Amendment doesn't mention self defense at all. It does, however, talk about "being necessary to the security of a free state." Just as I said.
You should read it sometime.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[turtlespeed 212]

kallend

You must be thinking of the English Bill of Rights of 1689 which states "Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence".

However , the wording of the 2nd Amendment doesn't mention self defense at all. It does, however, talk about "being necessary to the security of a free state." Just as I said.
You should read it sometime.

Quote

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Point 1 - The militia - stated as necessary to the security of a free state.
Point 2 - The rights - People's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Evidently the Supreme Court Agrees.

Relevant rulings:
In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment "codified a pre-existing right" and that it "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"[15][16] but also stated that "the right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose". They also clarified that many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession listed by the Court are consistent with the Second Amendment.[17]


In McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.[18]

You are wrong John.
Just admit it.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[rushmc 18]

kallend

You must be thinking of the English Bill of Rights of 1689 which states "Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence".

However , the wording of the 2nd Amendment doesn't mention self defense at all. It does, however, talk about "being necessary to the security of a free state." Just as I said.
You should read it sometime.

Just a dishonest argument on your part John
Even the courts say you are wrong


But I look forward a founding fathers quote that states this admendment means what you say

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 1,648]

rushmc

***You must be thinking of the English Bill of Rights of 1689 which states "Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence".

However , the wording of the 2nd Amendment doesn't mention self defense at all. It does, however, talk about "being necessary to the security of a free state." Just as I said.
You should read it sometime.

Just a dishonest argument on your part John
Even the courts say you are wrong


But I look forward a founding fathers quote that states this admendment means what you say



Where, EXACTLY, in the 2nd Amendment does it say the purpose is for the self defense of the people? (YOUR post #65 this thread)

The Amendment itself suggests its purpose is "security of a FREE STATE".

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 1,648]

turtlespeed

You are wrong John.
Just admit it.

Your argument is not relevant in the slightest to the point.

Where EXACTLY in the wording of the 2nd does it state that its PURPOSE is the defense of the people as rushmc wrote in post#65 of this thread?

The ONLY rationale given is the security of a free state.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Gravitymaster 0]

kallend

***

You are wrong John.
Just admit it.

Your argument is not relevant in the slightest to the point.

Where EXACTLY in the wording of the 2nd does it state that its PURPOSE is the defense of the people as rushmc wrote in post#65 of this thread?

The ONLY rationale given is the security of a free state.

What does that mean to you?

[rushmc 18]

kallend

******You must be thinking of the English Bill of Rights of 1689 which states "Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence".

However , the wording of the 2nd Amendment doesn't mention self defense at all. It does, however, talk about "being necessary to the security of a free state." Just as I said.
You should read it sometime.

Just a dishonest argument on your part John
Even the courts say you are wrong


But I look forward a founding fathers quote that states this admendment means what you say



Where, EXACTLY, in the 2nd Amendment does it say the purpose is for the self defense of the people? (YOUR post #65 this thread)

The Amendment itself suggests its purpose is "security of a FREE STATE".

Nope
It doesnt
And it is dishonest at best to say otherwise

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

Maybe a college law paper will help you


http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/freestate.pdf

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 1,648]

Gravitymaster

******

You are wrong John.
Just admit it.

Your argument is not relevant in the slightest to the point.

Where EXACTLY in the wording of the 2nd does it state that its PURPOSE is the defense of the people as rushmc wrote in post#65 of this thread?

The ONLY rationale given is the security of a free state.

What does that mean to you?

Can't answer the question, can you?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 1,648]

rushmc

Maybe a college law paper will help you


http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/freestate.pdf

Can't answer the question, can you?

I suppose it hasn't occurred to you that the framers, who were all well educated and familiar with English law, could have adopted the wording from the English Bill of Rights had they chosen to. That wording DOES refer to self defense of the people. The framers chose NOT to use that wording, but referred to the state instead.

They wrote what they wrote. All else is just opinion, and everyone has one.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Gravitymaster 0]

kallend

*********

You are wrong John.
Just admit it.

Your argument is not relevant in the slightest to the point.

Where EXACTLY in the wording of the 2nd does it state that its PURPOSE is the defense of the people as rushmc wrote in post#65 of this thread?

The ONLY rationale given is the security of a free state.

What does that mean to you?

Can't answer the question, can you?

Apparently you are once again confused. I have not been engaged with you on this topic, someone else has. I asked YOU a question. Of course, I expected you to duck and weave to avoid answering, as usual.

[rushmc 18]

Gravitymaster

************

You are wrong John.
Just admit it.

Your argument is not relevant in the slightest to the point.

Where EXACTLY in the wording of the 2nd does it state that its PURPOSE is the defense of the people as rushmc wrote in post#65 of this thread?

The ONLY rationale given is the security of a free state.

What does that mean to you?

Can't answer the question, can you?

Apparently you are once again confused. I have not been engaged with you on this topic, someone else has. I asked YOU a question. Of course, I expected you to duck and weave to avoid answering, as usual.

He is a typical gun banner

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[wolfriverjoe 1,351]

kallend

Your argument is not relevant in the slightest to the point.

Where EXACTLY in the wording of the 2nd does it state that its PURPOSE is the defense of the people as rushmc wrote in post#65 of this thread?

The ONLY rationale given is the security of a free state.

How would you define a "Free State" professor?

And how would you ensure it's security?

And what, exactly is it being secured against? Foreign enemies?

Or domestic enemies? And are those only despots and dictators who would take over the government? Or does "security" include protection from thugs, brigands and highwaymen?

I would not call the chaos that was Los Angeles during the riots in 92, or the aftermath of Katrina in '05 "secure" or "a free state." (you can use several definitions of "State" there)

And in both cases, those in power, who were supposed to protect the public, either absconded their duties or actually posed a direct threat to the public.

Which left securement to...

The people themselves.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo