A question about The Second Amendment

[Enoch07]

People said that about the last time. It's always worst case, violence, and the end of the world. Except it never is.

Well I hope not, but the way the violence is escalating it wouldn't surprise me. I see no end of it in sight. Especially when the liberals in the liberal forums here just doubled down and called the majority of Trump supporters racist. This is one of the causes Trump won in 2016.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Well I hope not, but the way the violence is escalating it wouldn't surprise me. I see no end of it in sight. Especially when the liberals in the liberal forums here just doubled down and called the majority of Trump supporters racist. This is one of the causes Trump won in 2016.

I figured we were just saying we perceived the other side as racist based on everything that we've seen - I mean just look at the right on this forum, and your own attacks like in your thread where you said "The left is insane". I honestly feel you are creating your own Poe, Enoch, then getting upset when people respond to it.

 

[Enoch07]

I figured we were just saying we perceived the other side as racist based on everything that we've seen

Like what exactly? Be specific.

I mean just look at the right on this forum, and your own attacks like in your thread where you said "The left is insane".

If that is your example of racism you have failed.

I honestly feel you are creating your own Poe, Enoch, then getting upset when people respond to it.

That's a figment of your imagination, just like calling someone insane is evidence of racism.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Like what exactly? Be specific.

People, rather than treating Trump as a fallible man who may know a little about government, but makes a few harmful statements like on Twitter, are instead acting like he's the Messiah.

 

[Enoch07]

People, rather than treating Trump as a fallible man who may know a little about government, but makes a feel harmful statements like on Twitter, are instead acting like he's the Messiah.

A figment of the lefts imagination.

Also, not racist.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

A figment of the lefts imagination.

Also, not racist.

Still, until both sides understands the other side's rhetoric, and understand how we come off to the other side, I don't see how things are going to improve too much.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Still, until both sides understands the other side's rhetoric, and understand how we come off to the other side, I don't see how things are going to improve too much.

Perhaps by the slow winning over of those that are not fanatical on both sides. I support the right to bear arms, but I can also see that there needs to be a few changes to our gun laws.

 

[Enoch07]

Still, until both sides understands the other side's rhetoric, and understand how we come off to the other side, I don't see how things are going to improve too much.

Its not under the current conditions.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Perhaps by the slow winning over of those that are not fanatical on both sides. I support the right to bear arms, but I can also see that there needs to be a few changes to our gun laws.

I'm just seeing a large disconnect since Trump got in. His fanbase is doing some things which seem to sometimes come off as what a white supremacist would do, then when we call it out hoping that we can save that person from embarrassing themselves, we're called the crazy ones, and told that we're being embarrassing.

Politics in a nutshell right now.

 

[Jollybear]

You have to generally take one driving test your entire life. I didn't even have to re-take it when I got my California license. Defensive driving courses, yes I've known many people who've had to take those. But get behind the wheel while someone directly observes them driving after the first time? I don't think I've ever heard of it happening.

And nor should a second test, third test, ect happen. A first test should not even happen.

 

[Jollybear]

One can still commute without a driving license. I don't think that your logic quite holds.

You can only commute if your job is walking distance. Most people thats not the case. Plus, im also refering to all driving, cars and trucks.

 

[Jollybear]

You're not forgetting the "well regulated" part are you?


.

Oh yes, theres a quote from the fathers about that too.

Well regulated means the civilians not only need big guns to fend off tyrannical government, but they need to be TRAINED in there use.

Regulated does not mean ERODE the right to arms. It means to be trained, skilled and knowledgeable on guns and combat.

 

[Nakosis]

Sorry, but your blue font is just to difficult to read.

.

Fortunately for you, there's a link.

 

[Skwim]

The first protects the militia as well in highlighting one of the most important reasons we ought not infringe the people's right to keep and bear arms. The latter simply preserves the right to keep and bear arms.

Actually, the first clause, A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, announces the reason for the second clause, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Without the first clause the second clause has no reason for existing. It's like saying to your child, "Because you've been good you get an ice cream cone." No being good, no ice cream cone.

.

 

[Skwim]

Oh yes, theres a quote from the fathers about that too.

Well regulated means the civilians not only need big guns to fend off tyrannical government, but they need to be TRAINED in there use.

Regulated does not mean ERODE the right to arms. It means to be trained, skilled and knowledgeable on guns and combat.

Well, it does mean you have no Constitutional right to bear arms UNLESS you belong to a well regulated militia.

So, how many gun owners belong do you know that belong to a well regulated militia wherein they employ their personal arms? My bet is Zippo.

.

 

[Skwim]

Fortunately for you, there's a link.

Thanks. I missed that.

.

 

[Stanyon]

.

The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads: "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."



My question: What is the significant difference between:

"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."​

AND

"The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

​

.​

According to the SCOTUS none, this has been done over and over:

Second Amendment - The United States Constitution

 

[Stanyon]

liberals in the liberal forums here just doubled down and called the majority of Trump supporters racist. This is one of the causes Trump won in 2016.

Encourage it, let them make fools of themselves again and and again and reap the rewards later. Use coded words so you can plausibly deny any connection to racism while they make silly claims they can't actually prove. Bait them with statements you know they will jump on, if they are half as hysterical as they pretend to be it won't take long for the little monkeys to react. As they try to lynch you like an angry mob did the unfortunate Emmit Till many years ago then you can laugh and celebrate like a runaway slave that just made it to the north.

 

[Skwim]

According to the SCOTUS none, this has been done over and over:

Second Amendment - The United States Constitution

Not beating a dead horse, but simply recognizing that as it stands the amendment "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." means no more than: the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The SCOTUS has simply eliminated the import of first clause while letting the words remain. A wholly asinine and moronic maneuver.
.

.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Encourage it, let them make fools of themselves again and and again and reap the rewards later. Use coded words so you can plausibly deny any connection to racism while they make silly claims they can't actually prove. Bait them with statements you know they will jump on, if they are half as hysterical as they pretend to be it won't take long for the little monkeys to react. As they try to lynch you like an angry mob did the unfortunate Emmit Till many years ago then you can laugh and celebrate like a runaway slave that just made it to the north.

Quoting this so it can't be self-user-deleted later. Lol.