Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
Ah, but that's not regulated in the least. The militia spoken of in the second ammendment is well regulated.
|
and well regulated means what to you? I know how jefferson and madison defined it, but how do YOU define it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by shakran
You keep supporting the idea that the 2nd lets anyone and everyone have a gun, yet I've seen zero logic from you as to why they would bother qualifying that with the well-regulated militia clause.
|
Because there is no 'qualifier'. It simply states that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. It does NOT say that the right of the well regulated militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shakran
I, however, have pointed out that clause, which is what supports the idea that "they didn't really mean for everyone to have guns."
|
which is why T. Jefferson said that 'no freeman shall EVER be debarred the use of arms?
Quote:
Originally Posted by shakran
Because the government sat around doing nothing for 48 of those days. Don't delude yourself.
|
I'm in no way deluded. They sat around hoping that the davidians would surrender. When they wouldn't, the FBI said enough. People ARE going to come and we'll have a bigger mess on our hands.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shakran
Bull. That is absolute bunk that you're making up as you go along. I challenge you to give me a reliable, trustworthy source that claims that. They raided when they did because Director Sessions was an idiot who was already in trouble for taking taxpayer funded personal trips all over the country, and was trying to show that he was tough so he could keep his job. Many of the field agents (Sessions didn't bother consulting the guys on the ground who knew what was going on) actually were in favor of pulling back a bit to de-escalate the situation and try to calm Koresh down.
|
And I suppose you wouldn't consider anything reliable unless it came from a congressional report, right? Sessions WAS an idiot, and I don't claim that what I said was the ONLY reason, it was just one of them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shakran
I support the notion that it is better to live in a peaceful, democratic society than it is to hole myself up in a bunker cleaning the guns in my arsenal pretending the post-apocalyptic totalitarianism is here and coming to get me.
|
Who said anything about living in a bunker? But if you can't see whats going on in the world, how do you expect anyone to take what you're preaching at face value? MOST of us gun owners would LOVE to live in a peaceful and FREE republic. The problem is that WE understand the price of that freedom, where others do not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shakran
You're damn right it is. Unless the government is actually oppressing you, you don't need to run around claiming you and your gun is the only thing standing between us and government oppression. But random shootings can and should not be excused by claiming it's all part of the price of freedom.
|
Can the government take your property for public use? Can the government take ALL of your money because you didn't pay enough taxes? Can the government raid your home with flashbangs, machine guns, and get away with murdering members of your family all on the basis of a criminal informant? All of the above is a huge resounding YES, yet you think this isn't opression to you. I feel very sad for you, for you obviously have no idea what freedom is supposed to be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shakran
Pure blindness on your part. Guns get stolen every day. Pretty simple.
|
None of my guns has EVER been stolen. What have I done right that others haven't?
Quote:
Originally Posted by shakran
So you think something that's unorganized is in fact regulated? Someone get this kid a dictionary.
|
reg·u·late (rgy-lt) Pronunciation Key
tr.v. reg·u·lat·ed, reg·u·lat·ing, reg·u·lates
To control or direct according to rule, principle, or law.
To adjust to a particular specification or requirement: regulate temperature.
To adjust (a mechanism) for accurate and proper functioning.
To put or maintain in order: regulate one's eating habits.
Now, where does the 2nd Amendment say that a government regulated militia is the ONLY militia? It doesn't. Patrick Henry said 'We are the militia, all of us, save a few elected officials. PH was NOT a regular military member, a national guard member, NOR was he a cop. He was part of the militia. Just like YOU are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shakran
No, they did not. They were not that stupid.
|
And yet they wrote one of the most famous documents in the entire world. read your history again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shakran
Ahh, more insults that add nothing to the argument. Keep it up sport.
|
If I was insulting you I'd have said you were a complete dumbass making up history on the spot and tell you that you knew jackshit about the constitution and should get your money back from the university you're studying at. I didn't say that, I made a sarcastic remark, with little tact, saying that you're not as smart as you think you are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shakran
Well according to you nothing can be a militia unless it's individuals running around without any regulation or training in the use of their weapons. Not much of a militia.
|
I've consistently said that there are two types of militia, one is the organized and one is the unorganized. The organized IS/WAS the NG and the other one is the rest of us. Yes, the REST of us, meaning YOU and I, and anyone else that fits in the Militia Act. Again, read your history.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shakran
Pushing for another ban, are we?
What you mean to say is that I disagree with you and am therefore stupid. Just because my historical view of the constitution is not the same as yours does not mean that you are not the one who has no clue what he's talking about.
|
No, I don't MEAN to say anything of the sort. I've told you AND showed you that what you say is right (though you've shown ZERO historical documentation to prove your claim), is actually wrong. You STILL choose to believe differently, all the while saying that what I have produced as proof does not mean what the founders intended, even though it was said by the founders, and therefore I am the one that is wrong, illogical, and unreasoning. Therefore, I have to call in to question the education you've received. Too bad if you don't like the fact that I've shown you to be wrong time and again. THAT is not my problem, though it COULD be yours when you find yourself in courts pushing your incorrect ideology.