|
ded posted:marines that love to remind everyone they were a marine are the worst You think they're bad now? Back in the old Corps...
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2017 05:52
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 16:22 |
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:I know. That was the point. The militia system failed miserably and was basically swept to the dustbin of history. The 2nd amendment was never treated as a general right of the people to bear arms until heller. That is entirely a modern interpretation. So it's the "Shall not be infringed" part you have trouble with, not the preamble. Privateers and other mercs used to be able to have their own cannon. It's not "an entirely modern" interpretation it's the thing working as intended. Banning scary poo poo happened in a response to the romanticized bank robbers going after the people actually stealing land with a BAR or Thompson. Valentines Day massacre and other then ethnic minority criminal agencies were the boogey man back then too. The inherently dishonest narrative doesn't change, just what's slipped in mad lib style. poo poo, in New York I'm pretty sure it goes back to the draft riots.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2018 03:10
|
|
|
Victor Vermis posted:Biometric them, Catalog them, And carpet bomb their reproduction ceremonies. They would somehow hit a Chinese embassy.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2018 08:28
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:The auto comparison rings true for some people, I've found. It's pretty easy to get people to agree that weapon ownership should have at least as rigorous requirements as getting a driver's license. Cars aren't enshrined in the constitution as one of the tools of or reasons for revolution. Do you need a license for speech, trial by jury, not be forced to quarter troops in your home, etc. etc. It's part of the litmus test of the republic.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2018 23:36
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:The SCOTUS, especially in it's current makeup, is not going to allow any wholesale confiscation program. This is entirely a strawman argument. This holds true no matter how prevalent this fear may be. Fight against the fallacy and look at the reality of the situation. It doesn't start wholesale. It starts like California, Chicago or DC. Where "reasonable" becomes "be friends of the administration or gently caress you for trying to exercise this right". Where despite SCOTUS telling them "Shall Not Be Infringed" means "Shall Not Be Infringed, and also you're in contempt now," they pass the same rule with a slightly different wording hoping the next guy wont have enough financial backing to fight. Big D has absolutely acted in bad faith when its backed people like Feinstien and Daly.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2018 05:12
|
|
|
Proud Christian Mom posted:nm the mental illness issue is with people who think theyre going to be watering the tree of liberty any time soon Don't forget the leftest tankies who don't know their own history. Like Athens Tennessee or the BPP, who had armed poll watchers in response to the KKK's actual terrorist campaign.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2018 23:16
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:The government absolutely has and retains the monopoly on violence. The idea that the 2nd was ever intended as any kind of check on the federal system is ludicrous. The states check the power of the federal government all the drat time, and its via the designed system not through violence or force. Part of the states being a check on that and a check on states governments is the populace being armed and capable of revolt. This part of your argument ignores nearly everything ever written by the people who wrote the constitution or bill of rights, as well as most supreme court decisions regarding the second. A group of people who just fought a bloody revolution against an oppressor that wanted a monopoly on violence sure as hell didn't want any new government to become what they just fought. The bill of rights is basically a list of reasons for revolt and they were very careful to include "Shall Not Be Infringed" not "Congress Shall Make No Law" on the second amendment.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2018 21:56
|
|
|
kupachek posted:Stuff With you on most of this but with the safe thing there'd have to be a Heller exception for reasonable home/family/self defense. One that has very clear consequences if it's used by law enforcement to harass people minorities. The NRA only cares about the NRA. They can go to hell. Not just for the poo poo they pulled in the 90's but that's a large part of it. If you're anywhere near a strict Constitution type don't make the mistake of thinking they're on your side. They'll sell you and everyone else out to fudds and old people they can scare for money. Steezo fucked around with this message at 08:56 on Feb 20, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2018 08:53
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Also, I'd read a bit more history...it's full of examples of the citizenry being abused by a government that has a full monopoly of force, or the government being unable to defend the unarmed population when necessary. The examples don't show up every decade, but when they do appear, the results are disastrous. The idea that "it could never happen here" is 100% bullshit. We're seeing seeds planted literally now, through this administration and that its horrible ideas (death penalty for drug dealers, overt racism/regressive policies, etc) actually have some support in the population. I've said it before but Athens Tennessee and the Black Panther Party (before the government infiltration and astroturfing) are examples of it being used as intended within at least one human lifetime. Also the Roof Koreans during the LA riots. The second amendment has never been about sport, it's always been about a check on government monopoly on violence.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2018 23:30
|
|
|
Proud Christian Mom posted:That ship sailed long ago No it hasn't. Do you want me to start quoting the Supreme Court as to why you're wrong? Ever read the remarks on Heller vs DC or McDonald vs Chicago? Because those two are recent. Or do you want me going further back, to when predominately black churches had armed security because of a KKK bombing and terror campaign? Shall Not Be Infringed. Real simple language. Kinda like Congress Shall Make No Law...
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2018 01:19
|
|
|
Proud Christian Mom posted:let me know when you're ready to start shooting police ok FYI this is why the anti-rights crowd isn't taken seriously. "Oh you don't agree with me, and pointed out a fact, let me attack you as a person".
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2018 06:32
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 16:22 |
|
|
Naked Bear posted:I, too, have a difficult time grasping English sentence structure. Commas as a dramatic flourish are hard. A lot of you are stumbling over the part that goes, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Which is different language from "Congress shall make no law" because it also applies to the states. The government was never meant to have a monopoly on violence. Unless you somehow reject the notion that the people referred to in First and Fourth amendments aren't the same as the Second. Supreme Court rejects the notion that they're separate people as it usually means "voter". To quote the Heller ruling, "the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home." Steezo fucked around with this message at 23:36 on Mar 26, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2018 23:33
|
|