Liberal Forum

ConsRule » 21 Feb 2023, 12:47 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Feb 2023, 12:47 pm

The Federalist Papers are nothing more than glorified Op-Eds.

The Constitution says what it says.  If the founders wanted it to say something different, they would have written it differently.

A militia is (as defined at the time the Amendment was written) " all able-bodied citizens eligible by law to be called on to provide military service supplementary to the regular armed forces."

In the context it is used, well-regulated means well armed and trained.  It DOES NOT mean legal regulations (restrictions)

It means that because you say so? Just ignore the language of the amendment and will use your interpretation instead?
Well regulated means they regulate the time place and type of arms.
Well regulated.
Well regulated also means the arms can be removed from anyone who is found to be non-compis mentis or otherwise irresponsible.
Well regulated

slideman » 21 Feb 2023, 12:55 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Feb 2023, 12:55 pm

It means that because you say so? Just ignore the language of the amendment and will use your interpretation instead?
Well regulated means they regulate the time place and type of arms.
Well regulated.
Well regulated also means the arms can be removed from anyone who is found to be non-compis mentis or otherwise irresponsible.
Well regulated

No...it doesn't.  Even the CNN hired experts basically say you're full of ****.

https://constitutioncenter.org/images/u ... Aug_11.pdf

Punch » 20 Feb 2023, 8:05 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Feb 2023, 8:05 pm

He's not wrong. Goodbye assault weapons. He's a passionate young man that has decided what his goal in life is. It is difficult to fight against that.


David Hogg says Second Amendment 'intentionally misinterpreted' to protect individual rights (msn.com)
(Full article at above link)

Gun control activist David Hogg recently stated that the Founding Fathers never intended the 2nd Amendment to protect an individual’s right to own a gun. Hogg wrote a Twitter thread on Sunday insisting that historians and law professors have informed him that the law was "intentionally misinterpreted" away from its intention to "protect state militias." "After reading about the history of the second amendment and talking with a lot of hist & law professors- I believe the second amendment has been intentionally misinterpreted. It was never meant as an individual right it was created to protect state militias like the national guard," Hogg tweeted.
He continued, "It says well-regulated militia for a reason. The ‘shall not be infringed’ part means the federal government is not allowed to forcibly disarm state militias. I’m not alone in this interpretation. Over 100 years of jurisprudence back me up on this."
He added, "To those who don’t agree that’s fine- you are entitled to your own opinion and I’m still ready to work with you on what we can agree on. Disagreement and hatred are not the same thing."
"When I graduate, I will be running for office. And I will win. Things will change, I promise you that."
 

that twerp is nothing more than a male form of Greta Thornberg shoved into the limelight by the media saving global climate change stupidity as the poster child for gun control.

slideman » 21 Feb 2023, 12:23 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Feb 2023, 12:23 pm

The language of the amendment is clear. You have the right to join or be protected by a well-regulated militia.
That right shall not be infringed.
There is no individual right.

     
Propagandists know...  

Z09 » 21 Feb 2023, 1:41 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Feb 2023, 1:41 pm

Maineman..
Maybe you can endorse Hogg for head of the military

What a stupid comment for you to make!

did you read what the former chief justice wrote?

Y/N

Z09 » 21 Feb 2023, 1:37 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Feb 2023, 1:37 pm

Didn't you say awhile back you have loaded guns in your house?
Are you saying you shouldn't have that right?

Read what Former chief justice Burger wrote and then, try to discuss his comments with a modicum of intelligence.

I dare you.

Punch » 20 Feb 2023, 8:05 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Feb 2023, 8:05 pm

He's not wrong. Goodbye assault weapons. He's a passionate young man that has decided what his goal in life is. It is difficult to fight against that.

David Hogg says Second Amendment 'intentionally misinterpreted' to protect individual rights (msn.com)
(Full article at above link)

Gun control activist David Hogg recently stated that the Founding Fathers never intended the 2nd Amendment to protect an individual’s right to own a gun. Hogg wrote a Twitter thread on Sunday insisting that historians and law professors have informed him that the law was "intentionally misinterpreted" away from its intention to "protect state militias." "After reading about the history of the second amendment and talking with a lot of hist & law professors- I believe the second amendment has been intentionally misinterpreted. It was never meant as an individual right it was created to protect state militias like the national guard," Hogg tweeted.
He continued, "It says well-regulated militia for a reason. The ‘shall not be infringed’ part means the federal government is not allowed to forcibly disarm state militias. I’m not alone in this interpretation. Over 100 years of jurisprudence back me up on this."
He added, "To those who don’t agree that’s fine- you are entitled to your own opinion and I’m still ready to work with you on what we can agree on. Disagreement and hatred are not the same thing."
"When I graduate, I will be running for office. And I will win. Things will change, I promise you that."

Hogg is an idiot. He has become an opportunist attention whore as well.

The only thing that has changed regarding guns is the people swallowing the pabulum of the progs.

The phrase "A bullet has no friends once it leaves the barrel." has always been true.
The fact that people do not respect the phrase (nor is it taught) has caused a lot of grief.
Harming other people is not important enough to avoid these days.
The Golden Rule is not even a familiar phrase with people any more. People now suck.

Hogg is a poster boy for crocodile tears. **** him and anyone that "likes his message".
 

This is why I say MM is lying about serving. He doesn't respect the Constitution, even after a Supreme Court ruling.

Punch » 20 Feb 2023, 8:05 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Feb 2023, 8:05 pm

 

Gretta says "David Hogg is a Pig.

slideman » 21 Feb 2023, 12:55 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Feb 2023, 12:55 pm

It means that because you say so? Just ignore the language of the amendment and will use your interpretation instead?
Well regulated means they regulate the time place and type of arms.
Well regulated.
Well regulated also means the arms can be removed from anyone who is found to be non-compis mentis or otherwise irresponsible.
Well regulated

No, that's not what it means.  A sixth grade understanding of government will even tell you that.

maineman » 21 Feb 2023, 1:51 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Feb 2023, 1:51 pm

Read what Former chief justice Burger wrote and then, try to discuss his comments with a modicum of intelligence.

I dare you.

That doesn't answer the question.  

Which one of you liberal cocksuckers is coming for my gun?
No cheerleader's please.
Man up and come and get it.
 

slideman » 21 Feb 2023, 12:23 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Feb 2023, 12:23 pm

The language of the amendment is clear. You have the right to join or be protected by a well-regulated militia.
That right shall not be infringed.
There is no individual right.

lol okay 

ConsRule » 21 Feb 2023, 12:51 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Feb 2023, 12:51 pm

It is much more likely that would have been elated that some judge finally had the common sense to open a dictionary and read the definition of the words they wrote, in proper context and in accordance with the commonly accepted manner of writing at the time.

Even experts hired by CNN understand

https://constitutioncenter.org/images/u ... Aug_11.pdf

Your link is a bit unhelpful to your argument. This is the expert conclusion:

"While there is a common law right to self-defense, most historians think that it would be remarkable news to the framers of the Second Amendment that they were actually constitutionalizing a personal right to self-defense as opposed to trying to say something significant about the militia," he says
 

slideman » 21 Feb 2023, 12:39 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Feb 2023, 12:39 pm

You are required to have a driver's license but they don't take your car unless you commit a crime.

Hogg is a Nazi. 

jack » 21 Feb 2023, 2:22 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Feb 2023, 2:22 pm

Your link is a bit unhelpful to your argument. This is the expert conclusion:

"While there is a common law right to self-defense, most historians think that it would be remarkable news to the framers of the Second Amendment that they were actually constitutionalizing a personal right to self-defense as opposed to trying to say something significant about the militia," he says

The people are the militia.  Self-defense and checks on gov is exactly what they were talking about.  

U
 jack
Your link is a bit unhelpful to your argument. This is the expert conclusion:

"While there is a common law right to self-defense, most historians think that it would be remarkable news to the framers of the Second Amendment that they were actually constitutionalizing a personal right to self-defense as opposed to trying to say something significant about the militia," he says

Unfortunately for you (and others) "most historians" aren't on The Supreme Court and don't get to decide that question.

The main points in the link were the definitions of militia and well-regulated and the context of looking at the writing style commonly accepted at the time.  From the link; "...we can see the Court considered the awkward phrasing of the Amendment. The Justices divided the Amendment into an operative clause: "right of the people to keep and bear arms," and a prefatory clause: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State." The court determined the relationship between these phrases, as well as the historical context of the Constutition's creation, clearly provided an individual right."

As you should know, assuming you took an English course above 6th grade level, an operative clause identifies the actions made in the resolution...while a prefatory clause states why something should be done.

I wish I could remember where I saw this so I could give proper credit, but...In a more modern writing style (and using the in context definitions of militia and well-regulated) the 2nd could be...without changing the purpose...re-written something like "Because we need a well armed and well trained pool of civilians from which to pull a group to support our established military in their efforts to preserve our freedoms, the right of of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
 
 

slideman » 21 Feb 2023, 12:23 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Feb 2023, 12:23 pm

The language of the amendment is clear. You have the right to join or be protected by a well-regulated militia.
That right shall not be infringed.
There is no individual right.

And the counter to that is from the moment the 2nd was ratified in 1791 until 1934 when the National Firearms Act was signed, there was no gun legislation passed by the Federal Government.  The framers became politicians and presidents and no changes were were made.  None.  As a matter of fact Madison funded research and development of technology to mass produce repeating rifles so the common citizen could afford one.  

So I disagree with you. 

Huey » 21 Feb 2023, 2:51 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Feb 2023, 2:51 pm

And the counter to that is from the moment the 2nd was ratified in 1791 until 1934 when the National Firearms Act was signed, there was no gun legislation passed by the Federal Government.  The framers became politicians and presidents and no changes were were made.  None.  As a matter of fact Madison funded research and development of technology to mass produce repeating rifles so the common citizen could afford one.  

So I disagree with you.

You might disagree with @slideman  , and the Supreme Court also disagrees with Slidey.  Heller Decision.  Slideman refuses to acknowledge it or what it states.  He will just tell you the Supreme Court is "wrong".   That's really sums up Slidey's position.  He can't read the 2nd Amendment and he won't acknowledge the Heller Decision.

Basically, Slidey doesn't want you to have guns and he invents **** to justify his position.  Not even worth arguing with the guy.
 

maineman » 21 Feb 2023, 12:35 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Feb 2023, 12:35 pm

Former Chief Justice Warren Burger agreed with David Hogg.

funny that.

Was he resurrected,  since he died before the Hogg was born.....or did he tell you in a dream, Wilford?