|
SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> I guess they Used to know /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1528121285 Message started by justin_o_guy2 on 06/04/18 at 07:08:05 |
|
Title: I guess they Used to know Post by justin_o_guy2 on 06/04/18 at 07:08:05 The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible.” — Senator Hubert H. Humphrey (D-MN) What happened? |
|
Title: Re: I guess they Used to know Post by Eegore on 06/04/18 at 07:28:22 Well for one it wasn't until 2008 that anyone said in the US that individual citizens have the right to carry arms. The DC case. Also not many people believe their AR-15 is going to stop a US Navy carrier group from blowing up the local power, water and food supply. Back when we all had muskets it made more sense. |
|
Title: Re: I guess they Used to know Post by justin_o_guy2 on 06/04/18 at 07:39:51 for one it wasn't until 2008 that anyone said in the US that individual citizens have the right to carry arms. The DC case. No, everyone who can read knew that. It's only because someone wanted to pretend otherwise that the court was forced to Interpret The flipping obvious. An AR15 isn't likely to stop the navy. So? If you MIGHT have to go against a bigger, better equipped opponent, and you expect to get crushed, should you give up what little weaponry you have? |
|
Title: Re: I guess they Used to know Post by Eegore on 06/04/18 at 09:16:34 Not many people believe their current firearms will stop the US military from obliterating their neighborhood if by some miracle anyone could convince them to do it. To me thats like asking if a 6 year old should carry a knife while I shoot him in the back of the head from 100 yards. If it makes some people feel better to have a shotgun in their hand when a cruise missile drops down on them then that's great. Personally I'd rather use the tools that work in todays environment, like fund mitigation, active election activity etc. as I have found that I get more done that way than with any of the guns I own. If I had access to the same war tools as our government I'd say it would be more like the days of both citizens and government having close to equal footing. The 2nd would apply closer in its original sentiment that way. |
|
Title: Re: I guess they Used to know Post by WebsterMark on 06/04/18 at 09:21:08 Why couldn't we defeat Afghanistan in the 80's? Why couldn't Russia? How can Isis and other Islamic fighters keep us at bay for so long? You could even ask why did we pull out of Vietnam when we were so clearly superior from a military point of view? |
|
Title: Re: I guess they Used to know Post by justin_o_guy2 on 06/04/18 at 09:25:48 had access to the same war tools as our government I'd say it would be more like the days of both citizens and government having close to equal footing. The 2nd would apply closer in its original sentiment that way. Back to top Email Personal Message Add to My Buddy List IP Logged Abso freaking Lootelee That said I see no reason to surrender what meager weapons we have. The Navy destroyer is unlikely in east Texas, and missiles need targets, Somehow poor, oppressed people have managed to make it really tough for our Greatest military on Earth in other countries. A pistol can drop a guy who has a great rifle, ammunition, all kinds of things. A chainsaw can slow a column, snipers can make it tough, Your grasp of what people who are being screwed can do might be limited. |
|
Title: Re: I guess they Used to know Post by Eegore on 06/04/18 at 09:28:49 516364757263744B67746D060 wrote:
None of those were exclusively civilians using their legally purchased firearms. There was a lot of international interference, and armament supplied to those civilians. We gave military grade ordnance to the Afghans, they didn't stop heavy armor and drop Hinds from the sky with shotguns bought at Walmart. ISIS is using our left behind military items, they get more from Iran they didn't go buy an AR-15 at a sporting good store. It is feasible that US citizens could shack up in the mountains and inner cities and make urban warfare a nightmare for years. I don't think however if that were to happen it would not be considered "guarantee against arbitrary government" |
|
Title: Re: I guess they Used to know Post by Eegore on 06/04/18 at 09:34:44 "I see no reason to surrender what meager weapons we have." Nobody has said to surrender firearms, nor was it intentionally implied. I was attempting to say that given the firearms that we have purchased, and get to keep indefinitely, that they do not compare to the weapons that the government has at its disposal. We used to, but we do not now. |
|
Title: Re: I guess they Used to know Post by MShipley on 06/04/18 at 09:46:28 I do not have guns because I intend to take on the Government. there are 3 primary reasons. 1. Defend my home, family and property. 2. In case of a societal meltdown. 3. Because I want to, I enjoy shooting and last I heard this was a free country. However there are many that are trying to change that. |
|
Title: Re: I guess they Used to know Post by WebsterMark on 06/04/18 at 09:58:50 An armed citizenry can absolutely defend themselves against their government or invasion. In every case? No, but its a fighting chance. The point is you can find many cases where a citizenry armed with light weapons can fight to a standoff and eventually 'win' a conflict. And I would argue that in Vietnam, we had vastly superior firepower, yet unwillingness to use it left us fighting on more equal terms. again, think about how long we've been fighting the Taliban? How long the Palestinians have been fighting Israel? Now think how easily the Jews were rounded up. Think how much different thing would have been if American slaves were allowed to own firearms. The 2nd Amendment protects the nation from the unthinkable. It's hard to live with sometimes, but so is the 4th Amendment, so is the 1st Amendment. |
|
Title: Re: I guess they Used to know Post by justin_o_guy2 on 06/04/18 at 10:38:57 E, the things I say To you Are meant for others who have expressed their beliefs that the second amendment is Outdated. Defense from tyranny is never out of style. |
|
Title: Re: I guess they Used to know Post by MnSpring on 06/04/18 at 11:31:34 514F74756C7079651C0 wrote:
Said Perfectly. #1. A-Yep. #2. A-Yep #3. Gee, I like shooting, in all sorta of forms. And like Shooting, better than, Golf, Soccer, Tennis, Football, Hockey, Basketball, etc, etc, etc,. "...However there are many that are trying to change that...." |
|
Title: Re: I guess they Used to know Post by Eegore on 06/04/18 at 12:27:53 I believe the 2nd Amendment is outdated. FOIA has done more to mitigate government corruption in the past 20 years than any personal firearm. I don't think the 2nd should be removed, but I also don't think telling the next generation that their Walmart shotguns will protect them against their government is equal to telling youth in the Revolutionary War something similar. The firepower is leveraged toward the government more so now than when the 2nd was instated. |
|
Title: Re: I guess they Used to know Post by MnSpring on 06/04/18 at 17:14:58 “…I believe the 2nd Amendment is outdated….” I wonder where the, Freedom of Information Act, (FOIA), would be, with out that useless, outdated thing called the 2nd. |
|
Title: Re: I guess they Used to know Post by MnSpring on 06/04/18 at 17:59:45 485751564B4C7D4D7D45575B10220 wrote:
LOL, Knew HHH well, The flight path was right over our house, so knew Every time he was at his, ‘Compound’, in Waverley MN. It is back to a era where, even though Strongly Disagreed with HHH and Mondale. They STILL Understood, what this Country is about. And it is Not about Cry Baby Snowflakes. |
|
Title: Re: I guess they Used to know Post by Eegore on 06/05/18 at 05:51:42 63407D5E5C4740492E0 wrote:
I don't think American citizens used firearms to implement FOIA but instead used more modern means. I don't know of a situation where the government attacked its own citizens to stop FOIA from being implemented. In theory in the past, when we were on equal weaponized footing with the government, the 2nd was implemented in the way it was intended when it was written. I feel by the time FOIA was being pressed in congress that the US government had far exceeded the average citizens capacity to aquire and implement weapon usage. Had the government ordered the mass execution of US citizens by means of US military, and by some miracle convinced them to do it, there's not enough AR-15s, chainsaws and Wal-Mart shotguns out there to have made FOIA possible by using those personal firearms. By my logic, for the 2nd to be equally pertinent now as it was when written, our usage of personal firearms would be equal to, or greater than the governments. |
|
Title: Re: I guess they Used to know Post by MnSpring on 06/05/18 at 08:50:39 1D3D3F372A3D580 wrote:
“… I don't think American citizens used firearms to implement FOIA but instead used more modern means. I don't know of a situation where the government attacked its own citizens to stop FOIA from being implemented…” Nope, neither did. Yet the very simple fact that is, COULD be, was enough. “… In theory in the past, when we were on equal weaponized footing with the government, …” No, Never were, the British had far superior firearms, and far more training. The’New’ country prevailed, because of Determination, cunning, wisdom, and obtained skill, (among many other things, namely, “Reason To”) “… Had the government ordered the mass execution of US citizens by means of US military, and by some miracle convinced them to do it, there's not enough AR-15s, chainsaws and Wal-Mart shotguns out there to have made FOIA possible by using those personal firearms. …” Again, a mart-mart shotgun, against a armored tank, no contest. But that, Again, is NOT the Point. (See the First Response Again). If you want to talk about, ‘may-bees’, At one military Academy, in one Professors class, he taught a, ‘What If’. That was the, Entire Mexican Army, was lined up, on the border, and NO one knew about it, then one day invaded. It would take just 3 days, for the people the civilians, (with absolutely NO help from the US army), in just 4 States, to completely Destroy the Invading army. Then this little thing called the internet ? Ya think, their would be, NO other country to help the people in the USA ? Then this, 'Bundy' thing. What, Stopped, the Government ? They could have had, ONE tank, One bomb/airplane, One gas canister. It would have been SO Simple, to just eliminate them, push them aside. Why Didn't that happen ????? Ah but your argument is, we are beyond that now, the 2nd is not needed. My Argument is, without the 2nd, the government just would have called in a air strike. What was that yellow star that was to be sewn to your outside clothing, just so we know. It is, 'Reasonable' ya know. Of course, forget any recent History. Why was the USA never invaded by foreign forces during WWll, (their was un manned attempts, which were unsuccessful) “… By my logic, for the 2nd to be equally pertinent now as it was when written, our usage of personal firearms would be equal to, or greater than the governments. …” Before it was written, it was Less, than opposing forces. After it was written, their was a very brief period in time, where is was, ‘equal’, that lasted about 8 years. After that, the firearms the USA Military had, exceeded what the Civilians had. The mart-mart shotgun, is a very foolish argument. It is the Bigger Picture. A sniveling, crooked, snide, town council member, will steel all the money he can, anyway he can. And when caught, will be Voted out, and run and hide. Because, their is NO way, he will face the, mart-mart shotgun. The 2nd, is NOT only Freedom. It has a great deal of History, and is very powerful. Kinna like the Stars and Strips. It, actually a piece of cloth, with dyed threads. In that respect, it is just like a old sock. Lay in a Ditch, Rot, Burned, thrown in the Trash. YET, what does the Stars and Strips Represent ??????????? Yea for some, it is just a dyed piece of cloth. For others, (the Majority of Citizens), the Stars and Strips, represents, Something else. |
|
Title: Re: I guess they Used to know Post by WebsterMark on 06/05/18 at 09:00:17 The 2nd Amendment is the last line of defense to an oppressive government. It's stage 'Z' meaning there are 25 bad things that would have to happen before we got there. I don't know where we are, maybe "C" right now. But weakening the 2nd Amendment is not an option in my book. |
|
Title: Re: I guess they Used to know Post by justin_o_guy2 on 06/05/18 at 09:27:46 I have the same book. |
|
Title: Re: I guess they Used to know Post by Eegore on 06/05/18 at 10:18:18 "Ah but your argument is, we are beyond that now, the 2nd is not needed." That is not my argument. I feel the 2nd Amendment is outdated. Much as many military aircraft are outdated however I do not think removing those aircraft from service without an upgraded version that is pertinent to today, and potential future uses is a valid change. As it stands until 2008 there was no ruling that the 2nd applied specifically to personal civilian ownership. There is a constant argument about the phrase "well regulated militia" and unless the 2008 ruling is overturned that phrase could be removed or otherwise amended. To try to explain to people all the imaginary scenarios where US citizens try to fight at the expense of millions of lives with their sporting goods guns is futile. Very few people think their neighborhood watch is going to hold up well against the US Government, and even fewer think it would ever use ballistic means anyway since there more modern methods of practical control over a civilian population. Murdering your own citizens with government equipment is not the primary go-to method anymore for the US, that was gone decades ago. The language of the 2nd infers that US citizens will use their personally owned weaponry to put up a fight against the US Government, and that is less and less realistic every year. If we are in a house to house battle with our own government then I do not think our personal firearms are a: "guarantee against arbitrary government" |
|
Title: Re: I guess they Used to know Post by MnSpring on 06/05/18 at 11:27:05 4B6B69617C6B0E0 wrote:
“… Ah but your argument is, we are beyond that now, the 2nd is not needed.” That is not my argument. I feel the 2nd Amendment is outdated. …” Their is a difference between, ’Not Needed’, and, ‘Outdated’. Not much, but their is a difference. “… Much as many military aircraft are outdated however I do not think removing those aircraft from service without an upgraded version that is pertinent to today, and potential future uses is a valid change…” If the above is referring to the 2nd. and “…potential future uses is a valid change…”. Then why stop at re-writing the 2nd, do all 10. “… As it stands until 2008 there was no ruling that the 2nd applied specifically to personal civilian ownership. There is a constant argument about the phrase "well regulated militia" and unless the 2008 ruling is overturned that phrase could be removed or otherwise amended. …” Yep, a, ‘Ruling’, Not the Meaning ! Their are at 200 + words, that the Primary meaning 250 years ago, is quite different than their primary meaning today. “… To try to explain to people all the imaginary scenarios where US citizens try to fight at the expense of millions of lives with their sporting goods guns is futile. Very few people think their neighborhood watch is going to hold up well against the US Government, …” Again applying a action, to a, ’supposed’ result. A result that, (see below) “ … and even fewer think it would ever use ballistic means anyway since there more modern methods of practical control over a civilian population….” Just think, eliminating, changing, the 2nd, will make it SO easy to install, “…modern methods of practical control over a civilian population…”. I see your point, get rid of the ‘outdated 2nd, and re-do it so it will no longer protect any others. Most notably the 1st. Then, we, the Citizens, can become Just like the, ’Subjects’, of the ‘other’ Civilized Countries. “…Murdering your own citizens with government equipment is not the primary go-to method anymore for the US, that was gone decades ago….” After the 2nd is removed/changed, the 1st will follow, and the above will never happen because, that government, NEEDS, workers, who Pay Huge Taxes, and are totally subservient. And if they complain, BECAUSE their is no 2nd or 1st, it is Off , (never to be seen again) And the F.O.I.A. “What was that !” “… The language of the 2nd infers that US citizens will use their personally owned weaponry to put up a fight against the US Government, and that is less and less realistic every year. If we are in a house to house battle with our own government then I do not think our personal firearms are a: "guarantee against arbitrary government” …” And AGAIN. Just like some see the Flag of this Nation, the same as a old sock. Some see the 2nd, as a infringement, to being, a, ‘Civilized Nation’, which has neither the 1st or the 2nd. |
|
Title: Re: I guess they Used to know Post by Eegore on 06/05/18 at 14:46:49 "Just think, eliminating, changing, the 2nd" Eliminating is still not the argument. Im not saying or proposing in any way the elimination of the 2nd. I am saying that most people do not believe, with good reason, that personally owned firearms will stop the US Government from killing them. I am also saying that the 2nd is outdated, primarily because the ruling in 2008 set precedence, a major part of how future cases are decided in US law, and that precedence is the right to individual ownership. The constant and most common argument is over the phrase "Well regulated militia" and as such it could be removed. Just that part, not the whole amendment. I don't understand why other parts of the Constitution can be updated but for some reason everyone thinks if you change anything to the 2nd that means the government gets to abolish the Constitution as a whole. |
|
Title: Re: I guess they Used to know Post by WebsterMark on 06/05/18 at 15:07:55 My point is if you want to regulate guns much more than they currently are, there should be a constitutional amendment defining 'well regulated militia' for today's world. Define it very clearly. Let's say it's defined as each state's National Guard. Maybe you say only the national guard armory's can hold semi-auto weapons with large capacity clips. Only bolt action, limited capacity high caliber weapons are legal for citizens to own and posses in their homes. Is that what you're thinking a "well regulated Militia" is? |
|
Title: Re: I guess they Used to know Post by Eegore on 06/05/18 at 15:14:05 Id rather see "Well regulated militia" removed since we don't abide by it anyway. |
|
Title: Re: I guess they Used to know Post by MnSpring on 06/05/18 at 16:18:31 Why such a fuss over the words: “well regulated Militia” Some think they mean, what they would would mean today ! Instead of interrupting what they Meant, When the 2nd was written. Which, ‘well regulated Militia’ = EVERYBODY ! That is like saying Charles Dickens is ‘Outdated’, and his works need to be changed. Because he used the word: Drawer, in reference to a ‘bartender’. Which, (TODAY) is a part of a piece of furniture. Used to be, underwear, or a person who draws on a account, or a artist. Or the Really old, ‘Outdated’. ! A bartender As Dickens wrote in 1860, about the early 1770’s. Yep, that pesky Dickens, Got to, ‘UP-Date’ his works. So without, “well regulated Militia”, some quick thoughts. The necessity to keep the States and Nations, Free States and Nations. The right of the Citizens, to keep and bear Arms, for any lawful reason, shall not be infringed. To keep free States and Nations and Citizens, the right of the Citizens to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. The necessity to keep the Citizens in the U.S.A Free and Safe, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Notice the omission of: ‘This gun good, that one bad’ ‘This magazine good, that one bad’ “This ammunition good, that one bad” Which are no doubt, what the ultra-liberals, will argue highly about. And once that path is cut to that slope, It, will become, VERY slippery ! |
|
Title: Re: I guess they Used to know Post by MnSpring on 06/05/18 at 16:21:01 624240485542270 wrote:
The words, “well regulated Militia” Then, clearly were referring to ALL the People. Which, ‘well regulated Militia’ = EVERYBODY ! |
|
Title: Re: I guess they Used to know Post by Eegore on 06/05/18 at 16:55:21 If law and rights in the US were dictated by Dickens work I would recommend an amending system to his works that could be updated as the nation changes. Comparing Dickens to the US Constitution is not applicable as the documents have zero shared effects on the right of US citizens. The assessment isn't about the definition of each word in specific segments of time, it is about how the words collectively make a sentence that concludes in a statement that is inaccurate now, but was not at the time it was written. I am not recommending we look at each individual word and update it, which is what the Dickens analogy presents. The previous post by Webstermark is an example of how the phrase "Well regulated militia" is so broad. By leaving it there the argument propagates to no end, as not everyone would by modern standards agree they are part of a militia. If more people believed personally owned firearms could actually stop the government by those means alone then I'd agree more with the original quote in the first post. |
|
Title: Re: I guess they Used to know Post by MnSpring on 06/05/18 at 17:08:43 Perhaps, Just Perhaps, the Meaning of the words: “well regulated Militia” Could be TAUGHT, Gee perhaps, Schools. That when written they were referring to ALL the People. |
|
Title: Re: I guess they Used to know Post by Eegore on 06/06/18 at 05:43:03 I think the problem is there isn't enough consensus that "well regulated militia" at that time meant the entire free populace. Is there any references to research done on this topic? Specifically the interpretation of how a "militia" was defined in the 1700's among the Colonies? First thing I wonder is why its left out of so much of the NRA education, even in the headquarters lobby I noticed its been removed. Seems if regulated militia meant all citizens the NRA should jump on that and start putting it in their material, given it can be supported with facts. All I have ever seen is that the "militia" at that time was to be considered state militias as that is the only definition verified to be documented in writing in 1751. So now we are proposing that it meant all (free) citizens, and that by that definition all free US citizens today are part of their respective state militia. Is there any documentation that every free citizen of age automatically became part of their state militia? I think Cooley in 1880 or 81 outlined it pretty well. |
|
Title: Re: I guess they Used to know Post by justin_o_guy2 on 06/06/18 at 07:50:27 Rather than start with a study, Let's ask ourselves a question.. In an emergency, when the alarm sounded to call out the militia, WHO GRABBED A GUN AND RESPONDED? Were they government employees? |
|
Title: Re: I guess they Used to know Post by Trippah on 06/06/18 at 08:05:37 Without a well regulated militia you would end up with mob rule; say a black guy reportedly rapes a white girl in Mississippi. A couple hundred armed citizens march on the jail house.....now a well regulated militia would require that the commander or Colonel, call out the militia, inform them where when and why, and then lead his militia to the designated engagement. Time of think about what you are doing and why..does it pass the smell test That is a small but important difference in the two scenarios; although in the Trump Tweet era, it might seam an even smaller difference. |
|
Title: Re: I guess they Used to know Post by Eegore on 06/06/18 at 09:14:16 716E686F72754474447C6E62291B0 wrote:
When was there a call for a militia? |
|
Title: Re: I guess they Used to know Post by WebsterMark on 06/06/18 at 09:18:36 Ask a simpler question. Should private citizens be legally allowed to own high caliber, high capacity, semi-automatic rifles. Right now, it's very, very difficult to legally own a fully automatic weapon and I would think 99% of the people agree with that restriction. so there is a precedent with regards to firearm types. So with that in mind, again: Should private citizens be legally allowed to own high caliber, high capacity, semi-automatic rifles. |
|
Title: Re: I guess they Used to know Post by verslagen1 on 06/06/18 at 10:41:24 49696B637E690C0 wrote:
When was there a call for a militia? [/quote] Anytime a force other than colonials attacked, indians, brits, french. |
|
Title: Re: I guess they Used to know Post by justin_o_guy2 on 06/06/18 at 11:46:39 E, spend a minute using your imagination. What potential threats existed? Just someone out hunting seeing a group of strangers was cause for Caution. Until you know what they want,you don't know if they are a threat. Are they scouting? Or just passing through? Probably not a bad idea to round up a few guys and keep an eye on them. The members of the community were responsible for the Survival Of the community. |
|
Title: Re: I guess they Used to know Post by WebsterMark on 06/06/18 at 13:39:16 The members of the community were responsible for the Survival Of the community. Exactly. In today's world, we pool our taxes and hire police. Or for larger issues, we 'hire' the National Guard. For foreign issues, we 'hire' the military. So again, the definition and intent behind militia really shouldn't be an issue. It was citizens who were armed. And in the case of the 2nd Amendment, the issue under discussion was an oppressive government. |
|
Title: Re: I guess they Used to know Post by Eegore on 06/06/18 at 14:11:14 The problem I have with using my imagination to assess how things were done that long ago is creating a connection to how that's done now. My assessment is that the 2nd is outdated, and bringing up more instances of events that don't happen today isn't helping. If the logic is that when the 2nd was implemented it meant all free US citizens, then why if times have changed we can not update the 2nd so that the topic of "well regulated militia" isn't the constant, (and it is constant, like every single time theres a discussion about the 2nd) equation thrown into the mix? The first post indicated that today personally owned firearms are a guarantee against arbitrary government, and the examples to defend any challenges to that are ones from well over 100 years ago. |
|
Title: Re: I guess they Used to know Post by MnSpring on 06/06/18 at 15:28:31 5E7E7C74697E1B0 wrote:
This is where the disagreement, fundamentally stands. The, Examples, they, (Anti-Gunners), and you only recite or think of, are the ones from 100 + years ago. “Who’s that in our woods” etc. And say they are Not at all relevant today. What is being missed, (Or IGNORED), Are the times a, Good guy/gal with a Gun, occurs. And how many times, Just ‘Having’ a gun, has stopped a crime. (Which is Seldom Reported) So to show one of the, ‘Needs’, in today's world, is simply acknowledging, ALL the times a, Good Guy/Gal, with a gun, did a Good thing ! But the Anti-Gunners, simply, Refuse, to acknowledge it has ever happened. Next, the fact of a Shotgun vs a M-1 Tank. No Contest, everyone knows that ! It is the, ‘FACT’, that it CAN, that makes the 2nd so powerful. Update the, ‘Who’s in the Woods”, to Modern. Here is one, happened to me. Walking down a Mpls street early a Sunday morning. (Were going to a gun show) The person I was walking with, said: ‘Isn’t it about time we cross the street’, like everyone before us were. Then they crossed back, after they passed a certain section ahead on the sidewalk. I said: ’No, just un zip your jacket, take your right hand, and put it under your left armpit” The reason, that everybody was crossing the street, was to get away from the, ‘kids’, blocking the sidewalk, and saying things like, Whitey, Cracker, Honky. We kept right on walking straight down the sidewalk., with our right hands under our jackets, and under our left armpit. and the 12-14, ‘kids’ that were blocking the sidewalk, all suddenly pressed their back against the store wall, and we walked on. Neither one of us had a firearm, apparently though, we were just so ‘good looken’, they decided to let us pass. That is just ONE, out of several thousand a Year. But the Anti-Gun people, will just NOT accept the Facts. And the Media, 80-20%, is, Anti-Gun. |
|
Title: Re: I guess they Used to know Post by Eegore on 06/06/18 at 17:00:33 So my attempt to address "well regulated militia" meaning "all free citizens" is not working as I am not accurately communicating my perception of what it is I don't understand so lets just say that "Well regulated militia" has always meant "all free citizens" and does now as well. My understanding is that the claim is the 2nd is a "guarantee" against arbitrary "government", not kids on a sidewalk. Intimidating kids on a sidewalk is not comparable to using personal firearms against the military. That analogy is useful if the argument was "Remove" the 2nd amendment and I have said nothing about that, in actuality I have said I do not want it removed. It would also be useful if the statement in the first post said the 2nd helps good guys with a gun, but it does not, it said "government" and as such that is the statement I was intending to address. I propose the "well regulated militia" be updated, not removed, in a capacity that a replacement is implemented immediately upon removal. This replacement should mitigate any concerns of removal of the phrase "well regulated militia" as it would result in material being put into its respective place within the 2nd amendment. This replacement should be applicable to modern day situations, or the more accepted amending process could be used. The amending process would not seek removal without replacement either. I feel it is outdated. That is not meant to infer a removal or in any capacity a reduction in its modern day usefulness. Any replaced or amended material would be with intent to modernize and strengthen the idea that "well regulated militia" means by todays standard "all free US citizens" I am not suggesting a removal of the 2nd amendment, I am questioning how its a guarantee as it applies to modern day applications. No removal would take place in the method I am suggesting. "Next, the fact of a Shotgun vs a M-1 Tank. No Contest, everyone knows that ! It is the, ‘FACT’, that it CAN, that makes the 2nd so powerful." This doesn't make sense to me specifically everyone knows that it can do what? |
|
Title: Re: I guess they Used to know Post by MnSpring on 06/06/18 at 18:41:25 0020222A3720450 wrote:
You have stated, many time in past posts: “…don’t think telling the next generation that their Walmart shotguns will protect them against their government …” “…not many people believe their AR-15 is going to stop a US Navy carrier group…”. “…Not many people believe their current firearms will stop the US military from obliterating their neighborhood…” “…If it makes some people feel better to have a shotgun in their hand when a cruise missile drops down on them…” “…they didn’t stop heavy armor and drop Hinds from the sky with shotguns bought at Walmart….” “…that given the firearms that we have purchased, and get to keep indefinitely, that they do not compare to the weapons that the government has at its disposal….” “…that given the firearms that we have purchased, and get to keep indefinitely, that they do not compare to the weapons that the government has at its disposal….” “…there’s not enough AR-15s, chainsaws and Wal-Mart shotguns out there to have made FOIA possible by using those personal firearms…” And you: cannot understand, or: ”…make sense…” Of, The statement below ? "Next, the fact of a Shotgun vs a M-1 Tank. No Contest, everyone knows that ! It is the, ‘FACT’, that it CAN, that makes the 2nd so powerful.” Think we all 'got it', that you believe, firearms available to Civilians today, are no contest to the Military might. And I Don't see any argument to that point. Yet, removing, 'well regulated militia', WILL, start a Bigger fight, as to BAN GUNS. So, Re-wright, and take out, 'well regulated militia', yet KEEP, freedom to Defend, Sport, etc,etc,etc,etc, in. BUT, have the NRA, re-wright it. NOT, Chicken Noodle News. "Wait", cry the Snowflakes, we want CNN to have a say also, it's only 'equal'. And then their will be: "Well you Can't have that, but (i guess) you can have this. "You don't need that, but, (i guess) you can have that. And those statements will go ON and ON and ON and ON ! So, we all got it, you believe the 2nd is, 'Outdated', because a Shotgun, cannot beat a Tank. (Hint Hint Hint) And you do not give any credence to the fact, that the 2nd, by simply being in place, can be MORE powerful than a H bomb. Which has been mentioned several times, by several people. So in a nutshell, you believe the 2nd, is, 'Outdated' And I, and others here, do Not believe so. |
|
Title: Re: I guess they Used to know Post by justin_o_guy2 on 06/06/18 at 19:46:36 E, the well regulated militia isn't the constant. That's what the antigunners Say. The constant is The RIGHT of the People to Keep and Bear Arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED |
|
Title: Re: I guess they Used to know Post by WebsterMark on 06/07/18 at 04:24:28 If the phrase militia is under dispute, surely the phrase "the People", is not. We the People is understood to me all the citizenry. So while a debate may ensue about the definition of and qualifications of what constitutes a militia, The People is not debatable. The People are us and that right shall not be infringed. |
|
Title: Re: I guess they Used to know Post by Eegore on 06/07/18 at 05:41:01 "And you do not give any credence to the fact, that the 2nd, by simply being in place, can be MORE powerful than a H bomb." I don't believe that by any means. What is described to me is whats happening in Syria, and that's working out so well for everyone. "Yet, removing, 'well regulated militia', WILL, start a Bigger fight, as to BAN GUNS." I am not suggesting that it be removed without a replacement that would be implemented immediately. Upon removal an updated and pertinent to modern day and potential future security language would replace the phrase "well regulated militia" or we can use the normal amending process to do the same thing. I think its time for a new fight, than listening to the same old one over and over, especially since its pretty obvious that the anti-gun movement is gaining political influence. I look at it as an argue the same point as you lose ground vs. a change the argument scenario. I do not nor have I ever suggested that Food related news networks write replacement material, not do I think the NRA should be exclusively responsible either. The current legal method should be implemented. Even if this happens it still wont guarantee that there would be no arbitrary government here. |
|
Title: Re: I guess they Used to know Post by Eegore on 06/07/18 at 05:49:35 425D5B5C41467747774F5D511A280 wrote:
I am saying that there is a "constant argument" not people "arguing over the constant". That argument is that, like you posted above, "well regulated militia" is part of the 2nd, while some people intentionally leave it out. The reasons are not pertinent, its that it exists in the document that allows anti-gun to have more ammunition. |
|
Title: Re: I guess they Used to know Post by Serowbot on 06/07/18 at 06:09:31 7E6D7A7B64696F6D6639080 wrote:
Does anyone see a future dispute over the Louisiana Purchase?... :-/ Now we see the real reason for the 2nd amendment. Protection of the state,... not from it... Those days are long past... |
|
Title: Re: I guess they Used to know Post by Eegore on 06/07/18 at 06:54:58 4A5C4B564E5B564D390 wrote:
Does anyone see a future dispute over the Louisiana Purchase?... :-/ Now we see the real reason for the 2nd amendment. Protection of the state,... not from it... Those days are long past...[/quote] That's what I am thinking as well. |
|
Title: Re: I guess they Used to know Post by WebsterMark on 06/07/18 at 07:05:11 .....and if they come back, what then? Leftist loved calling Trump Hitler (ridiculous but whatever) but what if we really had a Hitler? |
|
Title: Re: I guess they Used to know Post by Serowbot on 06/07/18 at 07:16:56 We impeach,.. we vote him out... Which is happening now. Did you load up yer' AK when Obama was elected?.. ;D ;D ;D |
|
Title: Re: I guess they Used to know Post by WebsterMark on 06/07/18 at 08:34:46 We impeach,.. we vote him out... Which is happening now. Actually, it's not happening now but that's a separate topic. One day, someone won't leave. Someone will want to use the military as their own personal guard to enforce their rule. Happened to many different countries. Is Trump going to try that? No. The next President? No. But if history repeats itself, it will or rather would at some point in the future.....IF the populace isn't armed. No, I didn't load up. .22 shells were hard to get for a while. 99.9% of all weapons are not used in illegal acts. There are 350 million guns in the US. Everywhere you go, you pass by thousands of homes, business, and people with guns. Multitudes of kids are killed texted and driving with no debate about banning cell phones. You say we overreact when enforcing immigration controls because of a 'few bad apples', yet you are asking hundreds of millions of Americans to change their ways because of a few? This reminds me of the Aids talk years ago. I heard the phrase countless times; Aids doesn't discriminate. Well, actually it discriminates a lot. With the exception of accidental blood transfusions, you had to take risk to get infected. So it is with guns, most gun deaths are criminal acts. In St Louis, most of the deaths are between, let's call them willing participates. |
|
Title: Re: I guess they Used to know Post by verslagen1 on 06/07/18 at 08:37:19 6F4F4D45584F2A0 wrote:
Does anyone see a future dispute over the Louisiana Purchase?... :-/ Now we see the real reason for the 2nd amendment. Protection of the state,... not from it... Those days are long past...[/quote] That's what I am thinking as well.[/quote] So when the mexican mafia roll thru you are ok with it? When the local gang bangers do a drive by you are ok with it? When BLM decides to take your cattle you are ok with it? etc, etc, etc. Or because it doesn't happen to you it can't happen? |
|
Title: Re: I guess they Used to know Post by MnSpring on 06/07/18 at 09:20:37 7F697E637B6E63780C0 wrote:
Perhaps some did. However I believe it was the sound, of all those, 'Mart-Mart', Shotgun's bolt's closing. That made the former, POTUS, think, 'not gonna go their'. |
|
Title: Re: I guess they Used to know Post by Eegore on 06/07/18 at 14:24:06 "So when the mexican mafia roll thru you are ok with it? When the local gang bangers do a drive by you are ok with it? When BLM decides to take your cattle you are ok with it? etc, etc, etc. Or because it doesn't happen to you it can't happen? " It does happen to me, I had to fight for years to stop the US Dept of Army from taking part of my land in the Pinon Canyon expansion. Never loaded a gun, never lost my land, we used more modern techniques to defund the expansion as we figured we wouldn't have enough firepower to keep the Army or local law enforcement from taking the land by force. The other examples are not ones related to a "guarantee against arbitrary government" as this post states. Those are examples of people using personal firearms against groups that are not the US Government, which would be an example of: "Protection of the State" which is what I said I agreed with. Unless of course you mean to say the Mexican Mafia or local gang-bangers are acting on orders from the State, then it would be "Protection from the State" however I do not think that this is happening. More good guy with a gun examples doesn't apply to a guarantee against arbitrary government. |
|
Title: Re: I guess they Used to know Post by justin_o_guy2 on 06/07/18 at 14:33:12 You didn't. They didn't make you. You know the Pink house story? Absolute travesty of justice. Only when the tyranny affects enough people will there be a rebellion. Why do you think every time They do something that will be very unpopular do they Institute that Policy Incrementally? |
|
Title: Re: I guess they Used to know Post by Eegore on 06/07/18 at 14:50:01 Do you think if enough people showed up with personal firearms that the lady would still own her house? It may be possible but it would have to be "marketed". The acreage being subdivided in CO for the PCE would have required hundreds of people to defend I imagine. We just didn't choose to go that route as we assumed 1: Mass murder of civilians over land is very unlikely. 2: We don't have the resources to maintain a stronghold for the years it would take to hold the ground and gain enough media attention without breaking laws ourselves. 3: Legal action worked in the past without putting lives, or careers on the line. But yes, at any point we could have been arrested and out land taken by force. So to be on topic do you feel eminent domain practice would increase if the 2nd Amendment was clarified to be inclusive of all free US citizens? Would updating it increase the chance of arbitrary government taking over? |
|
Title: Re: I guess they Used to know Post by MnSpring on 06/07/18 at 15:43:27 4666646C7166030 wrote:
Congratulations, on the above, you used the, “… more modern techniques…”, to make your point and to get your way. I know you don’t think so, But I do. The fact that the 2nd Exists, IS, the reason, (Of course as well as, making your point in a concise way) your points/discussions/ideas, prevailed. Because simply, if their was no, ‘outdated’, 2nd, you would have simply lost, as the larger power would have just rolled over you, regardless how good your talking points were. |
|
Title: Re: I guess they Used to know Post by Eegore on 06/07/18 at 16:42:12 I understand that we have modern law because of the 2nd, however I do not think it is a "guarantee against arbitrary government" today. It was, but it is not now. A part of the reason I was able to keep my land was the implementation of the 2nd, but it was not the practice of carrying my own firearms that secured it. I can't imagine for any reason that defining "well regulated militia" to todays standards will somehow deplete its usefulness. It can't guarantee anything right now but an argument over what a militia is "today". I do not believe that if the 2nd was repealed entirely that the US Government would have killed all the property owners as a first resort: "Because simply, if their was no, ‘outdated’, 2nd, you would have simply lost, as the larger power would have just rolled over you, regardless how good your talking points were" This implicates that if the larger power had rolled over us, that people with personally owned firearms could somehow prevent it, or prevent it from happening again, which they could not. Personally owned firearms today, not in the past, but today will not prevent the taking of land by the US Government. |
|
Title: Re: I guess they Used to know Post by WebsterMark on 06/08/18 at 05:00:55 Personally owned firearms today, not in the past, but today will not prevent the taking of land by the US Government. I believe it could. Is that a certainty? No, but I think an awful lot of US citizens would rather have the option to fight than be turned in Socialist Nazi Germany. |
|
Title: Re: I guess they Used to know Post by WebsterMark on 06/08/18 at 05:05:40 But, the reality is, like a lobster in a pot of water gradually getting hotter, we won't recognize our descent into freedomless socialiam. We'll just look back on it and think surely there was a time when we could have said no. |
|
Title: Re: I guess they Used to know Post by Eegore on 06/08/18 at 05:27:59 063433222534231C30233A510 wrote:
I agree that US citizens would rather have an option to fight, which is why I have never recommended the 2nd be removed or altered in a way that reduces its capacity to allow US free citizens to possess personally owned firearms. Updating by my definition is not removal. I don't have a better way to convey that updating would not involve the reduction of the 2nd's capacity to allow the ownership of firearms. I'm interested in how creating a modern definition for "well regulated militia" or replacing, (not removing without immediate replacement) the phrase altogether, will result in a socialist country. What's happening now is the "Lobster effect" as more and more citizens agree that a well regulated militia is not all people, but the National Guard etc. Eliminating that factor in turn eliminates that argument and I don't see how that's bad. |
|
Title: Re: I guess they Used to know Post by MnSpring on 06/08/18 at 13:16:13 “… as more and more citizens agree that a well regulated militia is not all people, but the National Guard…” Could be a very easy solution to that. TEACH, like in Schools Like 2+2=4 (Oh wait, 2+2 might equal 3 or 5, depending on what dress one puts over his Jock Strap) |
|
Title: Re: I guess they Used to know Post by justin_o_guy2 on 06/08/18 at 19:59:45 I think what Mr Spring is saying is Just because they have propagandized a significant number of the masses into parroting what they want people to believe Doesn't make it CORRECT. |
|
Title: Re: I guess they Used to know Post by Eegore on 06/08/18 at 20:19:32 I'd rather turn the odds in my favor than lose all the while saying how incorrect it is. Besides the phrase "well regulated militia" has always been debated, and there is no reason to believe that it won't continue. I can't imagine its going to be easier to convince all public education systems to adopt the theory, and it is theory, that a militia is all US citizens today. I mean the board here is full of losses, like gun-free signs/zones, trans-gendered school policy, common core etc. and convincing all US public education systems of a single interpretation of the 2nd as it stands now, then building that curriculum is going to be "easy"? Remove the "well regulated militia" line (with immediate replacement) and update it with a less debatable sentence structure and that argument disappears. Its not like I have to change your minds, all I have to do is re-educate your kids. |
|
Title: Re: I guess they Used to know Post by justin_o_guy2 on 06/08/18 at 20:24:04 You do know that you can WIN the argument and gain CONTROL and funk everything up, right? |
|
Title: Re: I guess they Used to know Post by Eegore on 06/08/18 at 20:32:32 425D5B5C41467747774F5D511A280 wrote:
I think the logistics behind defining "militia" by the standards of the day it was written and implemented, then transferring that interpretation to modern day is a hard win. If it hasnt happened yet with the NRA spending decades trying to convince people that "well regulated militia" means every free US citizen, I don't think it will happen at all. Face it, we cant even get the Pledge of Allegiance back in schools. Lets spend more decades trying, as more and more schools become gun-free, more parents endorse it, another generation grows up with more people saying that "militia" means National Guard. This is a better idea than removing militia from the equation? |
|
Title: Re: I guess they Used to know Post by justin_o_guy2 on 06/08/18 at 20:58:53 I don't know why you are so focused on the militia thing. Were the founders nuts or stupid? Did they write a self contradictory amendment? Doesn't it say The RIGHT of the PEOPLE to Keep and Bear Arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED? So what if people are not perfectly clear about the militia part? What DOES IT SAY In terms that CAN NOT BE CONFUSED? |
|
Title: Re: I guess they Used to know Post by Eegore on 06/08/18 at 21:38:58 All I am saying is that the same argument has been going on for decades. I'm ok trying something different since I can see what doing the same thing has done. I think its outdated and part of that problem is the phrase "well regulated militia". I'm ok keeping it also, but as such I expect the trend towards reducing personal gun ownership rights to continue. A big part of that is due to how few people think personal firearms will stop the government from killing them. Fewer and fewer think that personal firearms are a guarantee against arbitrary government and this leads to more acceptance of gun control measures. "So what if people are not perfectly clear about the militia part?" Since its the most brought up part of the anti-gun movement I would think dismissing it would result in more no-guns signs. Its was part of the proposal for the magazine restrictions in CO, it was in the Sandy Hook papers to congress, it was brought up after Vegas, at Virginia Tech, the current push for legislation in FL. I feel that since its a tool to educate that not all citizens have a right to bear arms but only those serving in a militia or National Guard that maybe its an issue. I also feel that 20 years of fighting to allow the Pledge of Allegiance with no success is a decent sign that allowing a never agreed upon in the first place definition of the 2nd Amendment wont do any better. |
|
Title: Re: I guess they Used to know Post by justin_o_guy2 on 06/08/18 at 22:10:28 Address my point. And your assertions that the militia phrase was never agreed upon is not reasonable. They knew what it meant. People of the time understood. And WhAtever the militia thing means, It DOESN'T conflict with The right, etc, etc.. Unless you can explain why I am wrong |
|
Title: Re: I guess they Used to know Post by Eegore on 06/09/18 at 06:41:15 Historians for decades have debated "well regulated militia" and not come to a consensus. For every article maintaining one position there is another maintaining the opposite. The NRA chose to keep it out of their education for years, its removed from the headquarters lobby, and that is ammunition for gun control. Its not about accuracy, its about interpretation and acceptance. Since the increasingly common interpretation is that the 2nd doesn't apply to all citizens, but only to those in a militia, then the other components are simply failing. "They knew what it meant. People of the time understood." Another example of the past. People arent debating the past, they are saying that past interpretation is not applicable now. Its like referencing laws about slavery, or housing the British, people dont think it applies. Since theres tangible evidence that "well regulated militia" has, not will but already has, resulted in more steps towards ammunition and gun control I feel its an issue. To me this is like complaining that kids today don't read enough instead of putting the valid information on Instagram. |
|
Title: Re: I guess they Used to know Post by justin_o_guy2 on 06/09/18 at 07:17:31 435C5A5D40477646764E5C501B290 wrote:
|
|
Title: Re: I guess they Used to know Post by Eegore on 06/09/18 at 08:37:07 Im just not conveying my point well. Some people read the 2nd in its entirety and dont select one part to make a judgement. Many people, especially youth think it applies only to militias because of the "well regulated militia" section. These people are taking the entire document into their assessment and not just the second portion. 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. I dont know how to more accurately convey that the above is what is used in arguments for gun control. Not the one section, but the entire thing and since many people think they arent part of a militia, and personal firearms no longer protect them from the government, that the 2nd is not applicable today as it once was. It s a simple as saying: "A well regulated bowling association, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." then expecting people to not bring up the bowling team part. the difference being its so easy to argue well regulated militia, again since most Americans dont think they are one. We can say "look only at that one part", "stop confusing things" but that hasnt resulted in less gun control. The opposite is happening. |
|
Title: Re: I guess they Used to know Post by MnSpring on 06/09/18 at 10:08:33 6040424A5740250 wrote:
I believe it would be real simple. Tell the Teachers to, TEACH, the TRUTH. Not their personal opinion. If they can’t, ’Their Fired’. Could always get a job filling gas tanks, or flipping burgers. (Oh Wait, can’t do either now) Well their is always, digging ditches, (Oh Wait …) I know, another, government job, pushing a piece of paper from one side of the desk to the other. |
|
Title: Re: I guess they Used to know Post by justin_o_guy2 on 06/09/18 at 11:48:09 6B747275686F5E6E5E66747833010 wrote:
[/quote] And I'm trying to get you to see There is no reason for confusion. The RIGHT of the PEOPLE SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Period, full stop. If someone suffers from confusion about the militia part, all that is necessary is asking Did they write a SELF CONTRADICTORY amendment? Let's think... NO. |
|
Title: Re: I guess they Used to know Post by MnSpring on 06/09/18 at 13:46:26 6E4E4C44594E2B0 wrote:
“… I think the logistics behind defining "militia" by the standards of the day it was written and implemented, then transferring that interpretation to modern day is a hard win. If it hasnt happened yet with the NRA spending decades trying to convince people that "well regulated militia" means every free US citizen, I don't think it will happen at all…” Decades, Plural, so that means a Min of 20 years. So for even, 30 -40 years Kids have been, LIED to ? How Many generations is that ? Are they the kids, who are encouraging Hogg to stand in the street and Cry ? “…Face it, we can’t even get the Pledge of Allegiance back in schools…” LOL, SAME as above who have pushed the pendulum SO far to the Left LOL “… Lets spend more decades trying, as more and more schools become gun-free, more parents endorse it, another generation grows up with more people saying that "militia" means National Guard. This is a better idea than removing militia from the equation? …” Perhaps let’s, Tell the Truth. Tell teachers to Tell the Truth. Tell Media to Tell the Truth. Tell Hollywood, NOT, to Encourage people to, Steel, Lie, Kill, etc, etc, etc, etc. Just thinking, that is a way to become a better, ‘Civilized Nation’, over handing out the workers money to the LAZY. ‘Play’ Devil’s Advocate with the, “well regulated militia”, part of the 2nd. So, the ‘Anti’s’, have been saying: ‘militia is Nat Guard, so it does Not apply to Citizens’. The, ‘Pro’s’. say it means, because it meant then, that is, the Citizens. Now someone says, eliminate the words: “well regulated militia”. And the reason is, because someone has been telling Kids, who had Kids, who tell their Kids, the words: “well regulated militia” mean, (now), Only the Nat Guard. Remember the part about the, ‘Anti’s’, believe the 2nd, means the Nat Guard, Because of, “well regulated militia” ? Remember the ‘anti’s’ believe that is the whole 2nd. Because of just the start of it, because they have been, ’told’, something different ? Taking out/redefining/changing, the, “well regulated militia”, part. With the expressed goal of, making the 2nd better. Cannot be done. (Now) To say, 'Here is the change, and it will immediately replace the current 2nd". Will Only trigger: “See Told Ya So’, “I was right’, ‘Na Na, Na NA Na’.” (I can hear the CRYING now) It will not get voted through because the States, that have NO control whatsoever over who votes. And NO Desire to Stop, encouraging people, who are NOT Citizens, to Vote, is happening. In fact, it will double the efforts of the 'anti's' to Eliminate the 2nd. The same, who will not realize, the 1st will shortly follow. When voting by, 'Citizens', only, Changes. Then, maybe, just maybe, the 2nd, can be re-written, with a Immediate replacement, Which, Guaranties, the Same RIGHTS, as the, Original 2nd. |
|
Title: Re: I guess they Used to know Post by justin_o_guy2 on 06/09/18 at 15:26:05 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. the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Where is the confusion? Explain how it's possible to fail to understand the meaning of that. And SINCE it clearly states that it's the People who are so endowed with the Right to keep and bear arms, Who MUST the militia therefore Be? It's not hard. It's straight logic. |
|
Title: Re: I guess they Used to know Post by Eegore on 06/10/18 at 08:41:19 "Then, maybe, just maybe, the 2nd, can be re-written, with a Immediate replacement, Which, Guaranties, the Same RIGHTS, as the, Original 2nd." Right, that is exactly what I am saying. Replacement that improves upon the current one. Defining militia to mean all free citizens to me does not denigrate the integrity or application of the 2nd. I could care less if people say "told ya so" as long as the 2nd applies today the same as it did then. |
|
Title: Re: I guess they Used to know Post by Eegore on 06/10/18 at 08:46:00 "I believe it would be real simple. Tell the Teachers to, TEACH, the TRUTH. Not their personal opinion" So they are told that, and their Union counters with many documents from historians that have for years debated the accuracy of the "well regulated militia" as a standard meaning "all free US citizens" and now it goes to court. What if the very administration that is responsible for firing these teachers doesn't agree? Fire them too, and if the local municipal court doesn't agree, recall the judges, the state supreme court doesn't agree, recall them too. I don't in any capacity think "telling" all teachers in the entire US to do something is going to be easy. You cant just tell people to do something, nationwide, that isn't agreed to be fact, has no laws anywhere dictating it as such and then put their state funded jobs on the line That's illegal. Look at the disaster "theory of evolution" has been. |
|
Title: Re: I guess they Used to know Post by Eegore on 06/10/18 at 08:55:22 "If someone suffers from confusion about the militia part, all that is necessary is asking Did they write a SELF CONTRADICTORY amendment?" Not everyone agrees that "well regulated militia" means all citizens - that's it, that is what is happening and no amount of asking the above question changes that. In court that didnt hold up. The first and foremost argument contradictory to this is that there wasn't a single US court ruling in favor of the "all citizens" philosophy until 2008. There is literally hundreds of articles about this, and its one of the primary arguments that has already been used in legislation to control firearms types and ammunition capacities. Its already been done, and yet you say ask X question and the problem is solved. Historically this is inaccurate, as there are documents that debate, with success, that "well regulated militia" does not mean "all free US citizens" by todays standards. |
|
Title: Re: I guess they Used to know Post by justin_o_guy2 on 06/10/18 at 09:20:31 everyone agrees that "well regulated militia" means all citizens - that's it, that is wh Just because not everyone agrees doesn't mean It needs to be changed. They need to be taught I've seen people who are confused about things. I'm talking TO people Here. You can agree with my point or not. I want You to tell me why what I said isn't a rational point. How is it possible to NOT see what I said? And I can't be responsible for the millions of wrongly Taught . I'm explaining HOW to explain what is being said in the second amendment. |
|
Title: Re: I guess they Used to know Post by Eegore on 06/10/18 at 10:14:47 I understand that but I have not seen it done with success. Hence the current lean towards more firearms type and ammunition controls, and the signs etc. Even the NRA pulled it from their education, and their print material for so long. It wasn't working. A big part of that is because people no longer think they are the militia, and the largest contributor to that is that they can no longer match the government in firepower. Personal firearms are no longer, to most people, a guarantee against arbitrary government. |
|
Title: Re: I guess they Used to know Post by justin_o_guy2 on 06/10/18 at 11:10:06 understand that but I have not seen it done with success. Really? I'm the only person I have seen say what I said. Nobody taught me that. In fact, arguing here caused it to gel. So, when students are unable to understand Algebra, which answer applies? How does being in a vulnerable position somehow mean you're not on the team? I really don't agree with you on changing the wording. Teaching the truth is much better IMO. |
|
Title: Re: I guess they Used to know Post by Eegore on 06/10/18 at 13:19:02 Algebra has distinct wrong and right measurable answers. Algebra as a whole can be taught as a right/wrong answer system as the results can be verified. I would consider teaching algebra easy in comparison to say teaching philosophy, or Christianity. The problem is that people don't accept the truth as it conflicts with their interpretation or education, It is not as easily measured, or universally accepted as mathematics. I'm ok leaving the wording, I just don't expect people to subscribe to the idea that it applies to them as the application has changed so much. |
|
SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2! YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved. |