Just as the Constitution doesn't say everyone has the right to abortion...

Do you believe the Civil War was a war to end slavery? Next time try a well researched historical account.

I'll do you one better and simply suggest you visit the nearest university library.

I've read Lincoln was backed by N.E. big business.
You?
 
So no you’re not going to provide any links. LOL
My claims are just as valid as yours LOL. Check out newspapers from the years leading up to the Civil War on microfiche. Slavery wasn't an issue. No one in the Union army would have gone to war against the south to free slaves. It's pure mythology.

The issue of slavery has been of considerable interest to me for decades. I see no effective difference between institutionalized slavery and much of what exists in first world countries today. More often than not, the old school variety provided slaves with a higher standard of living as well as a better standing in society.

Most people are profoundly ignorant when it comes to the finer points of Babylonian, Canaanite, Persian, Greek, Roman, British, and Irish etc. slavery which were far worse than the regulations regarding slaves found in the Mosaic law which far more people believe they know something about from a quick google search. Their links and their beliefs are sadly mistaken.

Most people in post modern society would prefer the safety and security that comes with slavery than the responsibilities that come with liberty. To a certain degree this was the case with slavery in the US as well. Many slaves had a far higher standard of living than their destitute counterparts who were free.

There are billions of people living in third world countries today who would trade their freedom in a heartbeat to be a slave in the US. This is especially the case with slavery as regulated under the Mosaic law where slaves lived under the same roof, ate the same food, and had all other necessities of life taken care of for them.

Modern social security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. is modeled after the institution of slavery. They've got your number which is effectively no different than owning you.
 
In theory, the US could pass a federal law outlawing private ownership / possession of all firearms except the musket, and this would still be consistent with the Second Amendment.

Or canons. Weapons of mass destruction.....
 
Yeah, I’m totally wrong.

Guns were exactly the same 250 years ago as they are today.

lol
They largely were, yes. semi-autos and machine guns existed when the Bill of Rights was made. Lewis and Clark went on their expedition with semi-auto weapons. Sorry you can't handle history.
 
In theory, the US could pass a federal law outlawing private ownership / possession of all firearms except the musket, and this would still be consistent with the Second Amendment.
And those musket owners would have to be part of a well-regulated militia.
 
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Maybe try reading comprehension class.
Why is it that gun "enthusiasts" never quote the full 2nd amendment, even though it is only one sentence?

Because the part about the necessity of having a "well-regulated militia" does not fit their argument.
 
My claims are just as valid as yours LOL. Check out newspapers from the years leading up to the Civil War on microfiche. Slavery wasn't an issue. No one in the Union army would have gone to war against the south to free slaves. It's pure mythology.

The issue of slavery has been of considerable interest to me for decades. I see no effective difference between institutionalized slavery and much of what exists in first world countries today. More often than not, the old school variety provided slaves with a higher standard of living as well as a better standing in society.

Most people are profoundly ignorant when it comes to the finer points of Babylonian, Canaanite, Persian, Greek, Roman, British, and Irish etc. slavery which were far worse than the regulations regarding slaves found in the Mosaic law which far more people believe they know something about from a quick google search. Their links and their beliefs are sadly mistaken.

Most people in post modern society would prefer the safety and security that comes with slavery than the responsibilities that come with liberty. To a certain degree this was the case with slavery in the US as well. Many slaves had a far higher standard of living than their destitute counterparts who were free.

There are billions of people living in third world countries today who would trade their freedom in a heartbeat to be a slave in the US. This is especially the case with slavery as regulated under the Mosaic law where slaves lived under the same roof, ate the same food, and had all other necessities of life taken care of for them.

Modern social security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. is modeled after the institution of slavery. They've got your number which is effectively no different than owning you.

Interesting. Has nothing whatsoever to do with what we were discussing, but interesting nonetheless.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BMS
And those musket owners would have to be part of a well-regulated militia.
You people lack imagination.

In one hour I could form a well regulated militia out of my basement. I will make my dead parents honorary members, thus it's done.

I can now go polish my assault Gatling gun that I wheel around in my horse drawn assault cart.
 
Everyone has the right to life… that includes little babies and that includes self defense.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER

This was the first ruling that recognized an individual right to own a gun, a right that did not exist in the 200+ years before that.
This ruling was one of many made by a SCOTUS that was remade as a wing of the GOP.

Prior to Heller it was recognized that in lieu of a standing army, the USA was dependent on "well-regulated militias" for defense. As the govt did not supply arms to these militias, it was recognized that the militia members should use their own personal weapons, and therefore needed to have the right to own those weapons for this particular purpose.
 
Why is it that gun "enthusiasts" never quote the full 2nd amendment, even though it is only one sentence?

Because the part about the necessity of having a "well-regulated militia" does not fit their argument.

What do you know about militias?
 
Why is it that gun "enthusiasts" never quote the full 2nd amendment, even though it is only one sentence?

Because the part about the necessity of having a "well-regulated militia" does not fit their argument.
I already addressed this. It's a prefatory clause that the part I quoted is not dependent on, and well-regulated did not mean what it would mean today. How are you guys this dishonest?
 
My claims are just as valid as yours LOL. Check out newspapers from the years leading up to the Civil War on microfiche. Slavery wasn't an issue. No one in the Union army would have gone to war against the south to free slaves. It's pure mythology.

The issue of slavery has been of considerable interest to me for decades. I see no effective difference between institutionalized slavery and much of what exists in first world countries today. More often than not, the old school variety provided slaves with a higher standard of living as well as a better standing in society.

Most people are profoundly ignorant when it comes to the finer points of Babylonian, Canaanite, Persian, Greek, Roman, British, and Irish etc. slavery which were far worse than the regulations regarding slaves found in the Mosaic law which far more people believe they know something about from a quick google search. Their links and their beliefs are sadly mistaken.

Most people in post modern society would prefer the safety and security that comes with slavery than the responsibilities that come with liberty. To a certain degree this was the case with slavery in the US as well. Many slaves had a far higher standard of living than their destitute counterparts who were free.

There are billions of people living in third world countries today who would trade their freedom in a heartbeat to be a slave in the US. This is especially the case with slavery as regulated under the Mosaic law where slaves lived under the same roof, ate the same food, and had all other necessities of life taken care of for them.

Modern social security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. is modeled after the institution of slavery. They've got your number which is effectively no different than owning you.
Wow! Talk about revisionist history! Are you unaware of the routine beatings, the separation of families including children, sexual abuse of female slaves? How can you argue that slaves had a high standard of living? This is pure nonsense.

Also the slavery issue was central to the Civil War, and is clear from the documents of that time.
 
Then explain the meaning of the first part of the sentence and how it pertains to and modifies the rest of that sentence.

Militias are military units formed from the populace. Not everyone in the general population served in the militia, but everyone in the militia came from the general population. Thus it was assumed that the general population ought to be able to be armed, and then out of that armed general population, select people were to be involved in the militia.

Ergo, not everyone included in the people who had the right to bear arms had to actually serve in the militia.
 
I already addressed this. It's a prefatory clause that the part I quoted is not dependent on, and well-regulated did not mean what it would mean today. How are you guys this dishonest?
Yes, I have heard you make that argument before.
Somehow the presence of a comma means the first part of the sentence can be ignored, according to you, but if that were the case, then why was it included. And as it was included, what is your interpretation of its meaning? The fact is that this clause does indeed modify the rest of the sentence, and eliminating it altogether when quoting the amendment is what is dishonest.

It is clear that the new federal govt of the USA was dependent on militias for defense and needed to make sure they were armed. That was the whole point of the second amendment. This need is obviously no longer operational, as we now have a standing army.
 
Militias are military units formed from the populace. Not everyone in the general population served in the militia, but everyone in the militia came from the general population. Thus it was assumed that the general population ought to be able to be armed, and then out of that armed general population, select people were to be involved in the militia.

Ergo, not everyone included in the people who had the right to bear arms had to actually serve in the militia.
But the only way to ensure the existence of armed militias for defense was to ensure that the members of those militias had the right to own guns.
 
But the only way to ensure the existence of armed militias for defense was to ensure that the members of those militias had the right to own guns.

Yes. And…? That has nothing to do with your claim that I was addressing. Which was, to refresh your memory: “And those musket owners would have to be part of a well-regulated militia.”

So yes the general population had to be armed in order for the militia to work. But not every musket owner had to be part of the militia.

You get it?
 
Back
Top