1st and 2nd doesnt exist because I said so (Page 5/7)
fredtoast SEP 14, 04:43 PM

quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:
“If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28





This is a perfect example of you posting something that you do not even understand. You have obviously never read Federalist Paper #28 or have any clue that it is about the necessity for a standing federal army to use force AGAINST American citizens instead of promoting rebellion by the citizens. In support of his position Hamilton mentions the need for federal troops to quell insurrections like Shays Rebellion and the Pennsylvania Mutiny.

The specific passage you quote is from his argument that A standing Federal army would be required to assist citizens of individual states when their leaders become usurpers becasue the citizens would not prevail without assistance from the federal government. the next two sentences that foow the section you quote makers this clear

"The usurpers, cloathed with the forms of legal authority, can too often crush the opposition in embryo. The smaller the extent of territory, the more difficult will it be for the people to form a regular or systematic plan of opposition; and the more easy will it be to defeat their early efforts."

In #28 Hamilton also supports my position that the founding fathers intended the for tyranny to be suppressed by the ballot and not by force.

"It is a full answer to those who require a more peremptory provision against military establishments in time of peace, that the whole power of the proposed government is to be in the hands of the representatives of the people. This is the essential, and after all the only efficacious security for the rights and privileges of the people which is attainable in civil society."


Next time educate yourself a bit before just blindly parroting information fed to you in the echo chamber.
82-T/A [At Work] SEP 14, 04:51 PM


quote
Originally posted by fredtoast:If you really did minor in English then you would not use the term "things" when analyzing the grammatical structure and function of each word and how they relate to each other. The proper term is "clauses". And more specifically "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" is a "subordinate clause" that cannot stand alone. Its meaning can only be ascertained in conjunction with the independent clause it modifies. And that independent clause is "The right of the people to bear arms, shall not be infringed."




Are you really going to sit here and "correct" me about grammar, with your horrendous grammar, use of punctuation, misuse of then / than, and effect and affect? You can have an opinion, that's OK. But the U.S. Supreme Court has re-affirmed exactly what this means, and it is NOT what you think it means.



quote
Originally posted by fredtoast:This is a perfect example of you posting something that you do not even understand. You have obviously never read Federalist Paper #28 or have any clue that it is about the necessity for a standing federal army to use force AGAINST American citizens instead of promoting rebellion by the citizens. In support of his position Hamilton mentions the need for federal troops to quell insurrections like Shays Rebellion and the Pennsylvania Mutiny.

- snip -

Next time educate yourself a bit before just blindly parroting information fed to you in the echo chamber.



So... you responded to the only thing you could find a liberal argument to, and ignored the rest. Apology accepted Fred... you lost this one too.
fredtoast SEP 14, 05:19 PM

quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:
So... you responded to the only thing you could find a liberal argument to, and ignored the rest. Apology accepted Fred... you lost this one too.



I did not have to disprove everything.

You said that the SOLE purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to secure the power of insurrection against the government.

i just provided proof that the militia was intended to both defend from foreign powers as well as AGAINST US CITIZENS who are attempting to revolt.
82-T/A [At Work] SEP 14, 07:52 PM

quote
Originally posted by fredtoast:

I did not have to disprove everything.

You said that the SOLE purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to secure the power of insurrection against the government.

i just provided proof that the militia was intended to both defend from foreign powers as well as AGAINST US CITIZENS who are attempting to revolt.




No, the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to ENSURE the protection of the 1st Amendment from the Government trying to take it away.
randye SEP 14, 10:07 PM

quote
Originally posted by fredtoast:


i just provided proof that the militia was intended to both defend from foreign powers as well as AGAINST US CITIZENS who are attempting to revolt.






NO YOU DIDN'T

You simply provided an OPINION by someone who's OPINION was not codified in the 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution.

You Leftists have a real and serious problem discriminating opinions from subjective facts.

[This message has been edited by randye (edited 09-14-2023).]

ray b SEP 14, 11:58 PM

quote
Originally posted by randye:



NO YOU DIDN'T

You simply provided an OPINION by someone who's OPINION was not codified in the 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution.

You Leftists have a real and serious problem discriminating opinions from subjective facts.




funny
your sides delusions of civil war
with pocket pistols vs tanks AND AIR SUPPORT
will go worse then the last time
btw
speaking of the last revolt FAILURE
how are your tourist buddys doing ?
are you sending care packages to them ?
williegoat SEP 15, 12:33 AM

quote
Originally posted by ray b:


funny
your sides delusions of civil war
with pocket pistols vs tanks AND AIR SUPPORT
will go worse then the last time
btw
speaking of the last revolt FAILURE
how are your tourist buddys doing ?
are you sending care packages to them ?


OK, friends, I want you to think about what rayb just wrote.
Let it sink in.
Get a picture in your mind.
You've heard it before.

Don't forget it.
I will elaborate later.
82-T/A [At Work] SEP 15, 07:54 AM

quote
Originally posted by williegoat:

OK, friends, I want you to think about what rayb just wrote.
Let it sink in.
Get a picture in your mind.
You've heard it before.

Don't forget it.
I will elaborate later.




I like Ray... but I'm not sure I really understood what he was saying. He's trying to pin the Democrats on Republicans of today, which of course is silly... you can simply just say that the Democrats have changed because that was over 140 years ago. But to somehow say that the Republicans today are the Democrats of 140 years ago is downright silly... but this is what Democrats do... they know their history kind of sucks... and so they try to disown it by saying the magic history fairy swapped Republican brains into Democrat bodies. Other than that, I didn't quite understand what he was saying.
fredtoast SEP 15, 11:01 AM

quote
Originally posted by fredtoast:


The "sole purpose" of the 2nd amendment was to maintain a well regulated militia to defend our country because we had no standing army.




This post is where I cut my own throat in this thread.

The point I was objecting to was TA's claim that the "sole purpose" of the 2nd Amendment was to prevent tyranny in the Government of the United States. But because I was trying to be clever I quoted his claim about "sole purpose", even though that was not the point I was trying to make.

TA82 is 100% correct when he says that I was wrong about the "sole purpose" being to maintain a militia. I got off track because I was trying to be clever. In my mind I was still just trying to prove that the "sole purpose" was not just to prevent tyranny, but I had cut my legs out from under myself by using the same "sole purpose" language.

So in this case I am admitting that I was wrong. I still say TA82 was wrong with his claim about the "sole purpose", but he is correct that the Supremem Court has ruled that the right to bear arms is separate from belonging to a militia. Funny how he loves judicial activism when it fits his beliefs.

But I always admit when i am wrong, and in this case I put myself in a position where I have to admit I was wrong.
fredtoast SEP 15, 11:07 AM

quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:
No, the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to ENSURE the protection of the 1st Amendment from the Government trying to take it away.



That is just one reason, but if you read the writings of the founding fathers it was not the main purpose. That is why they made it a crime to take up arms against the government they created. The main purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to protect the country from foreign forces, to keep peace between the individual states, and to use AGAINST US citizens that tried to revolt against the government. The founding fathers considered the ballot box the citizens weapon against tyranny.