This only clarifies that you lack understanding because I didn't make the claim. Since I didn't make the claim, why are you accusing me of lacking reading comprehension when I didn't make the claim you accuse me of?
AS a Christian can you ever vote DEMOCRATIC
- Thread starter The Prophet
- Start date
yep, but you cannot buy a jet airplane at the corner store.
So you are anti science.
Who is lying?
You cherry pick and ignore the individual right to bear arms.
Prove it
Cherry picking- the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Sorry. My mistake. Must have been some other poster named "Newbirth" who said, "Take up your issue with Ferengi he says in the declaration of independence God gives the rights to bear arms." in post #198.
The two are not analogous. Driving a truck is not a right.
And you asked what is easier than using a gun, and I gave you an example. Follow the argument.
What gun, available to the public, can get off ten rounds in three seconds?
Yes, one sentence with a comma in the middle, seperating the prefatory clause and the operative clause. It remains the right of the people that is not to be infringed.
Then neither the right of the people nor, by your admission, the right of the militia, shall be infringed.
All men have the right to keep and bear arms. The Constitution does not make an exception.
Well, that's what the Constitution says.
No, it's the militia that is well regulated, not the people.
No, I am not. Maybe your idea of science is different from my understanding of science.
anyone who willfully omits part of a statement to change the meaning.
Nope, I posted the 2nd amendment not part of it.
The fact that you keep asking is proof sir.
Criminals are people too...therefore they have a right to keep and bear arms, and their rights shall not be infringed.
So why don't you take up the issue with him? That is what he said.
According to wiki...Rights are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement; that is, rights are the fundamental normative rules about what is allowed of people or owed to people according to some legal system, social convention, or ethical theory.
Are you saying that people are not allowed to drive a truck?
Your example is not easier for the general public.
At least 1,500. Modern semiautomatic weapons can discharge a round and load the next bullet into the chamber faster than even the nimblest of fingers can pull the trigger. FBI studies have shown that a novice can fire three shots in less than a second, and a trained shooter can double that. (Two of the officers in the 1999 Amadou Diallo shooting emptied their 16-bullet magazines in about four seconds.) That means an experienced gunman can fire off a 20-round magazine—the likely capacity of Hasan’s gun—in 3.3 seconds. Reloading takes under two. You just press the magazine release button with your shooting hand and insert the new magazine into the grip with your offhand. * Experts holster extra ammunition on the side of their nonshooting hand to speed the exchange and can have the new magazine loaded before the empty one hits the ground. So each 20-round magazine would take no more than 5.3 seconds, including time to reload. That means you could fire off 1,575 shots in seven minutes—provided you were carrying 79 magazines on your person.
link
It is one sentence therefore no separation of anything. A comma denotes a pause.
In the 2nd amendment, the people are the well regulated militia allowed to keep and bear arms. In your scenario, the people are any untrained unregulated Tom Dick or Harry that are untrained and unregulated are allowed to keep and bear arms.
That is your understanding...but the 2nd amendment of the constitution does not say that...here is what it says... “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.”
nope it does not say "all men" read it slowly... “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 militia is the people who keep and bear arms. You are saying that the founding fathers who were about law and order were saying that every Tom, Dick, and Harry can have guns without regulation or restriction.
Because the post I quoted was yours.
Wiki is wrong. That's describing ethics, not rights. Rights are natural and inherent in man.
You'd have to be pretty stupid to think that by saying driving a truck is not a right, I meant that people are not allowed to drive trucks. Yep, pretty stupid.
Wow. That's pretty impressive.
Seems like it would have been easier for you to just answer the question instead of ignoring it, but, clearly, you can't.
Still doesn't answer the question.
So, were you not smart enough to understand the question? Is that why you're ignoring it?
Why can't you answer the question?
The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause (“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State”) and its operative clause (“the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed”). To perhaps oversimplify the opposing arguments, the “states’ rights” thesis emphasized the importance of the prefatory clause, arguing that the purpose of the clause was to protect the states in their authority to maintain formal, organized militia units. The “individual rights” thesis emphasized the operative clause, so that individuals would be protected in the ownership, possession, and transportation of firearms.
Amendment II. BEARING ARMS | U.S. Constitution Annotated | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute (cornell.edu)
Where does the Constitution say somebody has to be trained before they can exercise a right?
Actually, I just cited Cornell University Law School affirming exactly what I stated.
Exactly. The prefatory clause says "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" and the operative clause says, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Please find a grown up to help you read this, since you do not appear to be able to do so on your own. It is the people who's right shall not be infringed, not the militia.
Yes. That's exactly what they said. And, not only that, but they stated in the Federalist Papers that they wanted the citizenry to have the same arms as the government. They said "the people", not "some people" or "people we approve of". Just "the people". And then they said, "shall not be infringed", not "well, maybe infringed a little bit" or "shall not be infringed unless snowflakes are triggered because the weapon looks scary".
Last edited:
UncleAbee
Active member
I agree with the majority of what you said. Christians do have the right to influence the way moral standards are applied by law. What we don't have the right is apply secular law strictly based on what God says in the bible. We can't force our beliefs on society as a whole because everyone is not Christian (Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, non-believers, etc). One of our rights is freedom of religion. If Muslims were attempting the same thing we'd be all up in arms. US law has to be neutral. The intent of the law is to reduce injury and promote well being among humans.
UncleAbee
Active member
The "Right to Bear Arms" did not come from God. Can you find it in the bible? Would Jesus carry any kind of weapon? "We" gave ourselves the right to bear arms. It is man made. We can give it and we can take it away. The US Constitution is not a God derived document. Many of the founding fathers weren't even Christians. You should read what Thomas Jefferson had to say about the bible. The constitution was written during a different era. If we strictly applied it we would have no standing army and no Interstate highways. It is a man made document that needs to be revised as the US evolves over time. That's why there have been so many amendments to it. We have to eliminate this false thinking that the constitution is a God derived document. The 10 C's is God derived. The laws from the Sermon on the Mount is God derived. The US Constitution is not.
Gun related deaths is a real problem in the US. More guns is not the answer. If it was then the rate of deaths would be falling as the rate of gun purchases increase. The opposite is happening. More guns = more deaths by gun.
CrowCross
Super Member
Jesus always had a way of slipping away from a crowd and escaping danger.
But to his disciples he did say....Luke 22:36 He said to them, “But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one.
CrowCross
Super Member
Wiki? Seriously?
Then why wont you look at the science?
Ok who did that?
But since you left out the personal right to bear arms yes you did
IOW you have no proof.
Nope they give up that right when they break the law.
If all you have are ad homs and childish insults, then I think we've reached the Proverbs 26:4 portion of our conversation. You're dismissed.
Last edited:
Which law? What if they've paid their debt?
They still have the right, they just face consequences for committing crimes.
Should the guy who faces felony charges for mistakenly catching a federally protected fish really be treated the same as the guy who's actually a danger to others?
Do we treat mala prohibita crimes the same as mala in se crimes?
Your evidence is?
See above.
how many were atheists?
Yes it is - where there is more 2nd Amendment freedom - gun deaths and crime in general drop - thats a fact - read More Guns Less Crime- Lott