Discussion in 'The War Room' started by abiG, May 22, 2019.
The purpose of the amendment is for citizens to have arms for their militias, genius.
Actually, it's funny how people are going to co-sign the OP but when I say that the gun and homicide rate isn't a big deal as applied to black Americans, I'm told that it is.
Seems like a lot of hypocrisy running both ways. If these numbers show that gun crime isn't a big deal (and I agree...it's not a big deal) then these numbers also show that black gun crime isn't a big deal (again, I agree...it's not a big deal). I hope I can get some consistency out of some of you.
But should we call them thugs? This is an important distinction to make.
Just so we're clear . . . you're claim is that citizens need to be in an active militia to actually have the right to own firearms?
On Suicides the US isn’t in the top 25 or so countries according to this link http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/suicide-rate-by-country/
Many of the higher ranking countries (Japan for instance) have ridiculously strict gun regulations, meaning once again; more guns doesn’t always work out to mean more deaths. OP and (the lying) FBI are right, the statistics back freedom, why are people so quick to want the feds to walk in and trample their rights?
The right is to have them for militias, so yes.
But, that doesn't mean I want them all illegal. It's simply not a constitutional right, like speech, assembly, etc. You can't simply ignore the rest of the amendment to suit your desires. The right is to maintain militias, which we now do in a more centralized manner.
Yeah we have a Ginsert replacement ready to go.
Uhhh not so much.
Experience as a judge interpreting law?
None. But he does post on Sherdog. Yeah. Okay. I'll tell him.
Hey, Barry - SCOTUS says you should fuck off and read their rulings.
Not an argument.
I'm sorry that some of us are capable of reading an entire sentence without getting distracted.
Again, Barry. The SCOTUS interprets the Constitution. Not you. And they have made it very clear: You are wrong.
Do you want me to call them again?
Why do you think that was the case?
Who is ignoring anything here? How do you define a militia? I'd be okay if we brought them back . . . regardless, if you're going to drone on about maintaining a well-regulated militia as magic pill to remove my rights to own firearms and then state I'm ignoring a part of the same amendment that you're obviously ignoring a part of then I don't guess we'll be able to move forward with a discussion where we have our minds made up already. But I'll give it a go anyway.
Well-regulated means what exactly in your opinion? What was the context of the phrase at the time?
IMO, the phrase referred to something being in proper working order. If that something was "well-regulated" it functioned as expected. I think you're wrong if you're POV is that the phrase established government oversight of the people's arms. I (and many others) don't believe that was the intent of using the phrase in the 2nd amendment. Since the founding fathers weren't fans of standing armies I believe they were fearful of a government using a standing army inappropriately against citizens.
Yakuza makes a much bigger "splash". You're comparing a very old semi-legitimate org that even helps with disaster relief with their own helicopter, to sub 80 IQ animals shooting up BBQs over crack.
Bad comparison, very disrespectful great shame.
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.
-2nd Amendment of the Bill of Rights.
You should note that it doesn't say "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.", it says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Your analysis is just:
But you should be used to that by now.
...umm... have you heard about heller vs dc? it was kind of a big deal...
@Stoic1 referencing the Supreme Court's decision actually is an argument.
It's also a powerful counter-argument that refutes your original statement.
You're incorrect usage of "not an argument" stems from the fact that you haven't learned how to make a proper argument yet.
Surveys and polls are very unreliable. They directly are influenced by the takers.
Look at the last election for proof.
Well someone beat me to it as the supreme court already did that.
That includes the unregulated or unorganized militia as well.
Why are we only counting murder in gun crime?
This is not just a gang thing look at Jon Jones, sherdog and other fighters ridiculed him for supposedly snitching
Are you asking why they only count gun homicides and not all homicides?
Separate names with a comma.