1st and 2nd doesnt exist because I said so (Page 6/7)
82-T/A [At Work] SEP 15, 11:45 AM

quote
Originally posted by fredtoast:


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.




Stop talking to yourself Fred, you are not on a stage, there is no audience ... no one is listening.



quote
Originally posted by fredtoast: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.



What I said is, "...it's for the sole purpose of ensuring that the government is on notice that if it gets out of line, the people can and will right the wrong. That's WHY we have freedom of speech FIRST, and the right to gun ownership second... to protect the right of free speech."

"IT" being the second half, "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." I well-understand what a militia is. Separate from the second half, which has been reaffirmed THREE times against socialist-desiring radicals such as yourself.

The rest of your nonsense is cherry-picking. They (the founding fathers) literally were in the midst of a revolution where they had to take up arms to ensure their freedom. This was from a government that was actively conducting warrant-less raids against the colonies and confiscating weapons and arms... to disarm the citizenry. Your cherry-picking of this is totally absurd, totally nonsense, and yet again is you imposing your OPINIONS against over 230+ years of fact in which the Supreme Court on three separate occasions has issued a ruling directly against YOUR OPINION.


I'm done, I can't keep going in circles with your nonsense on this... your vote essentially means nothing where you live (thankfully) and I honestly don't really care what your opinions are, because they neither affect me, and will have no bearing on anything.
fredtoast SEP 15, 11:57 AM

quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:

Your cherry-picking of this is totally absurd, totally nonsense,



You tried to use 3 sentences from Federalist Paper #28 to support your opinion. I used the entire Federalist Paper #28 to support my opinion.

What is your definition of "cherry-picking"?



quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:
Supreme Court on three separate occasions has issued a ruling directly against YOUR OPINION.




My opinion is that no part of the 2nd Amendment was just to oppose tyranny of the government established by the founding fathers. The Supreme Court has never ruled against that opinion.
williegoat SEP 15, 07:29 PM

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 ?


Let's do the ol' two step and boil that cabbage down.

step #1: Forget for a moment, that it is rayb speaking.
step #2: Translate that drivel to plain English, line by line.
.......
Ha ha!
You think you can fight us with peashooters.
Peashooters against armor and aircraft.
Give up.
Or we will kick your ass again.
We already have your friends in the dungeon.
Go ahead, try something, I dare you.
.......

Now, stand back and read it out loud.


These are not the words of a murmuring Miami misfit. These are the words of a tyrant who is taunting his subjects, subjects he holds in utter contempt and over whom he has absolute power.

Rayb has never been in a fight in his life. He is just an establishment tool pandering to his overlords, doing as he is told, to save his skin, again.

He is not lacing up his gloves, he is lacing up his running shoes.
Valkrie9 SEP 16, 03:31 AM
Amended order applies only to city parks and playgrounds.
New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, falls back, retreating,
to a position in a park, eventually to schools, where the vulnerable are not defended by the Constitution.
Look, the ' cabbage boils down ' to counter constitutional dictates applying only to the little people, ( that's you ), reserving armed security for themselves.
' Of course, I have automatic armed security, grenades launchers too, because it's too dangerous out there. '

Despicable dempartie politicians. ' Didn't see that coming, doh ! '
Yep.
An emergency cancels the Constitution.
' That was easy ! '
' Here in New York, we'll have to cancel it too ! '
' San Francisco, we will cancel the Bill of Rights, and a few of the amendments, some of the icky ones. ' ~ Newsumness
Patrick SEP 16, 04:39 AM

quote
Originally posted by williegoat:

Translate that drivel to plain English, line by line...



I'm afraid your Babel fish has gone belly up.
cliffw SEP 16, 09:00 AM

quote
Originally posted by bonaduce:
... this Democratic run state just wants the money.



Ruck them where it hurts.


quote
Originally posted by bonaduce:
The fact that hunting season is starting here is the big rub, that's a lot of potential out of state ammo purchase. Several dealers have already started the lawsuit process, wait and see.



If you are paying for a deer hunting lease, pay for one in the State you buy ammo from.

I have never had to pay for a hunting lease. Thinking about it, I think the same o same o lease would get boring.

Deer feeders are not hunting. They are assassination tools.
cliffw SEP 16, 09:12 AM

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."



How many militia members fought in WW II ?
If you think the Constitution would prominently grant the right to keep and bear arms, when they did themselves against England, is ludicrous.

[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 09-16-2023).]

cliffw SEP 16, 09:33 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.



[QUOTE]Originally posted by fredtoast:
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.

Did you say Todd was right, and then say they created a crime to make it illegal, ?
theBDub SEP 16, 04:10 PM
The whole thing is puzzling. It’s a clear violation of rights.

I do wonder wtf she is thinking. What’s the point of all of this? Some (embarrassing) national press? Just a sense of duty to have a conversation on gun rights that she felt wasn’t being had? Because I truly don’t know what she was thinking if she thought this would fly—clearly she has another “end goal” in mind.

Or maybe she’s just an idiot, or too far polarized.
fredtoast SEP 16, 04:22 PM

quote
Originally posted by theBDub:

The whole thing is puzzling. It’s a clear violation of rights.

I do wonder wtf she is thinking. What’s the point of all of this? Some (embarrassing) national press? Just a sense of duty to have a conversation on gun rights that she felt wasn’t being had? Because I truly don’t know what she was thinking if she thought this would fly—clearly she has another “end goal” in mind.

Or maybe she’s just an idiot, or too far polarized.




I assume she is just kind of "screaming" out of frustration. She wants to bring attention to the issue. Keep it in the national debate.

I think she knows she is breaking the law in the same way Rosa Parks knew she was breaking the law. She probably knows that courts will over rule her, but she can claim that at least she tried to do something.