- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: This is a very potent argument against the "2nd amendment means militia" talking point
Posted on 2/16/21 at 8:58 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
Posted on 2/16/21 at 8:58 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
Virtually impossible to have a militia without armed private citizens.
0
Posted on 2/16/21 at 9:00 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
Libs have been running with this argument for several years now.
If you applied this idiotic logic to the first amendment then only the press and churches would have free speech rights.
The first 10 amendments represent a restriction of government power. Why would the founders stick a government power right smack dab in the middle of amendments representing individual liberty?
If you applied this idiotic logic to the first amendment then only the press and churches would have free speech rights.
The first 10 amendments represent a restriction of government power. Why would the founders stick a government power right smack dab in the middle of amendments representing individual liberty?
Posted on 2/16/21 at 9:02 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
Isn't this guy supposed to be a constitutional lawyer?
Posted on 2/16/21 at 9:17 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
Lol imagine thinking Democrats would fold because it’s specifically denoted in state constitutions predating the US Constitution. They would shred up every founding document of each state, and of this nation, if they could. Their goal is a great revision of America and turning into what they think it should be, not what it was intended to be.
Posted on 2/16/21 at 9:32 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
So he says we can have guns if we are part of a militia? So what’s are militias name ?
Posted on 2/16/21 at 9:59 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
It's all in the Federalist Papers. They very clearly DID mean private gun ownership.
Posted on 2/16/21 at 10:04 am to blueboy
Murphy needs to go back to school. The comma after Militia makes this a compound sentence. Neither a well forced militia or a person's rights could be infringed.
The Constitution is the rule book. The Federalist Papers are the case book. The rule is carefully and meticulously explained and you can bet that SCOTUS looks at both when they render a verdict.
The Constitution is the rule book. The Federalist Papers are the case book. The rule is carefully and meticulously explained and you can bet that SCOTUS looks at both when they render a verdict.
Posted on 2/16/21 at 10:09 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
Hypocrite. Murphy and the Dems will hide behind Government fences and Military while collapsing the economy, defunding Local Police and allowing 'protestors' like BLM/Antifa to run wild in the streets. And per the Left's own Strategy...to move those thugs into now civil, Suburban areas.
Watch and see if the Dems stand in the same Healthcare Lines that the rest of us do. Ruling Elite...and Serfs. That is what the Dems want; they'll play hell getting it by lying.
And there is NO argument that will persuade a Father from protecting his Family in this time of obvious and increasing violence. Like spitting in the eye of a Cottonmouth Moccasin.
Watch and see if the Dems stand in the same Healthcare Lines that the rest of us do. Ruling Elite...and Serfs. That is what the Dems want; they'll play hell getting it by lying.
And there is NO argument that will persuade a Father from protecting his Family in this time of obvious and increasing violence. Like spitting in the eye of a Cottonmouth Moccasin.
Posted on 2/16/21 at 10:11 am to bluedragon
quote:Exactly. Plus, a while bunch of people bought guns this year, many for the first time. The riots gave whole new groups of people a greater appreciation for personal gun ownership. The gullible ones might be up for an "assault weapons ban," but laws that ban the multi-round mags they just got with their new 9mm handgun are not going to get the same public support. An outright gun ban would simply be ignored, and rebelled against by individual states.
The Constitution is the rule book. The Federalist Papers are the case book. The rule is carefully and meticulously explained
ETA: but they could always spin the "founding fathers were racist slave owners, ergo the constitution is garbage" route. That seems to be gaining traction these days.
This post was edited on 2/16/21 at 10:13 am
Posted on 2/16/21 at 10:23 am to BornAndRaised_LA
quote:
So...are you saying only those 17-45 should be able to bear arms?
Seems to me that the 17-45 was applicable only for defining the group which might be subject to call into national service in time of war ie the 'militia' - and defining its reliance on an already armed and responsible citizenry. <-- that is sort of what the 2nd A says in plain words easily understood by the most backward plow hand in the USA at the time. We have since become so "educated" that we are unable to understand plain language anymore.
OR - are you suggesting that they meant nobody under 17 should have any access to a firearm ==> meaning they would not be fit for instantaneous defense of the country in a time of war without some significant training in fundamental firearm safety and usage. and that 45 year old should discard all his OWN WEAPONRY used in defense of the nation in a time of war as soon as he reached a certain age threshold?? Even though he had lived with him firearm peacefully and responsibility for 45 years
IS that what you mean??? come on - nobody is that stupid without being trained in the fine art of decorous stupidity turned into an artform.
Why is it so hard to understand the clear meaning of the words. To me it says - we need an armed and well-regulated (meaning they had been raised in a world of firearm usage and were well acquainted with the safe and purposeful usage in a civilized society) - so that in a time of war we would have a ready population from which to draw anyone from age 17-45 for defense of our nation from a foreign or domestic enemy in a time of war.
That is so fundamental to rational meaning that it is like trying to print the instructions for how to pour piss out of a book to be engraved on its heel.
Posted on 2/16/21 at 10:25 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
and the need to make sure citizens were armed in order to serve.
Hmmm, make sure citizens are armed.
Seems pretty straight forward.
Posted on 2/16/21 at 10:30 am to BornAndRaised_LA
quote:
They were in favor of raising an army as needed, but not a 200+year standing Army that was retained even during times of peace. They viewed armies as wartime necessities, not perpetual instruments of national power.
While much of what you posted in this thread is revisionist tripe, this is spot on, IMHO.
Which leads me to:
quote:
the speed of warfare does not allow for a militia-based defense
Tell that to Vietnam. Afghanistan. Iraq. Yemen.
Now, let's circle back to:
quote:
The modern world makes this view obsolete though
Is the notion that the police can only investigate crime after it has occurred and can do little to prevent crime other than a "show of force" (which has problems of its own), suggest:
1. Citizenry should be disarmed and let the chips fall where they may, OR
2. The 2nd Amendment's plain language should allow law-abiding citizens to form, sort of a, "militia of one" and protect themselves from ordinary crime, banditry and the like, such as we saw last year during the "Summer of Love(tm)"?
I'm thinking you lean #1, but I'd like to know your reasons.
Posted on 2/16/21 at 10:30 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
This is about as clear as you can get right here, so his point is not valid.
Posted on 2/16/21 at 10:31 am to CDawson
quote:
Hmmm, make sure citizens are armed.
Seems pretty straight forward.
It says, "the right of the people" - right there in English.
Posted on 2/16/21 at 10:33 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
CHAP. 196.-An Act To promote the efficiency of the militia, and for other purposes. January 21,1903. [Public, No. 33.]
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled, That the militia shall consist
of every able-bodied male citizen of the respective States, Territories,
and the District of Columbia, and every able-bodied male of foreign
birth who has declared his intention to become a citizen, who is more
than eighteen and less than forty-five years of age, and shall be divided
into two classes-the organized militia, to be known as the National National Guard of the State, Territory, or District of Columbia, or by such
other designations as may be given them by the laws of the respective
States or Territories, and the remainder to be known as the Reserve Militia.
Case closed.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled, That the militia shall consist
of every able-bodied male citizen of the respective States, Territories,
and the District of Columbia, and every able-bodied male of foreign
birth who has declared his intention to become a citizen, who is more
than eighteen and less than forty-five years of age, and shall be divided
into two classes-the organized militia, to be known as the National National Guard of the State, Territory, or District of Columbia, or by such
other designations as may be given them by the laws of the respective
States or Territories, and the remainder to be known as the Reserve Militia.
Case closed.
Posted on 2/16/21 at 10:57 am to Eightballjacket
quote:
It’d be hilarious if a conservative governor in a southern state formed his state militia (not the Guard) once again and gave the average Joe members some serious weaponry.
The unorganized militia is to bring its own weaponry, that is one of the reasons we have the right to possess weapons.
Posted on 2/16/21 at 3:11 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:
I'm thinking you lean #1, but I'd like to know your reasons.
Since you posed this within the context of the standing army response, I am NOT for disarming citizens overall, but I absolutely believe that the modern pace of warfare (the speed with which a near-peer could bring force to our borders) has overcome the framers’ militia-focused approach. We design our military around the most dire threats in the NSS, not the Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Yemen involvements. Our military is designed for Russia and China.
If we can acknowledge that a standing army (and USAF, USMC, USN) is a necessity to ward off existential threats to the homeland, then I fall to agreement with gun ownership that makes sense for personal protection and hunting/recreation but falling short of weapons that make more sense for collective defense.
In short, a state-level discussion on where to limit ownership in keeping with Scalia’s Heller decision when he stated:
“Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."
And that
“like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited." It is "not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."
All told, I believe states, not the federal government, should be responsible for safety within their borders and that they, not the federal government, should set the bounds for firearms limitations subject to the will of their electorate.
This post was edited on 2/16/21 at 3:15 pm
Posted on 2/16/21 at 3:40 pm to BornAndRaised_LA
quote:
we can acknowledge that a standing army (and USAF, USMC, USN) is a necessity to ward off existential threats to the homeland, then I fall to agreement with gun ownership that makes sense for personal protection and hunting/recreation but falling short of weapons that make more sense for collective defense. In short, a state-level discussion on where to limit ownership in keeping with Scalia’s Heller decision when he stated:
We don’t have anywhere near the number of foot soldiers needed to stop a large scale invasion of the US. Half the people enlisted in the military are pencil pushers.
Plus, there’s no guarantee that Americans won’t face civil threats from other Americans like we saw this past summer. And there sure in hell is no guarantee that the civil authorities will do anything to protect the citizens from those threats.
Posted on 2/16/21 at 3:42 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
the right of the people to keep and bear arms
done
Posted on 2/16/21 at 3:49 pm to themunch
quote:
At a press conference today, Press Sec. Jen Psaki said that Pres. Biden is "not afraid of standing up to the NRA" and won't rule out using executive orders to enforce stricter gun control measures
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/psaki-gun-control-a-priority-biden-not-afraid-of-standing-up-to-the-nra
At a press conference today, Press Sec. Jen Psaki said that Pres. Biden is "not afraid of standing up to the NRA" and won't rule out using executive orders to enforce stricter gun control measures
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/psaki-gun-control-a-priority-biden-not-afraid-of-standing-up-to-the-nra
Page 3 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News