A question about The Second Amendment

[Enoch07]

I've heard that before. Nothing came of it.

No, you just ignored it.

Who Are These Protesters In Black And Why Are They Smashing Things? | DCist

And it is looking like this time again it will be Trump supporters and those of the Right warning and worried about violence as a result of the election.

And they are correct time and time again. Like the attack of the far left in Boston last weekend.

But I am utterly unworried and unconcerned.

Ignorance is bliss eh?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Ignorance is bliss eh?

Could be. But it is blissful to not see demons lurking in shadows and demons crouched around the corners. It's of course all over the news that they are, but they just aren't numerous or many outside of the digital world. But here in the real world, probably about 90% of the time I meet real people who are regular people and not reactionaries checking under their beds for commies/nationalists and they certainly aren't thinking having a dog is a sign of missing owning slaves. It's an unpopular opinion because nobody outside of that whacko nutter group believes it. Not even most of the Left in general.

 

[Enoch07]

It's of course all over the news that they are, but they just aren't numerous or many outside of the digital world.

Tell that to the 1,000 that showed up in Boston.

But here in the real world, probably about 90% of the time I meet real people who are regular people and not reactionaries checking under their beds for commies/nationalists and they certainly aren't thinking having a dog is a sign of missing owning slaves.

Most are narcissistic sociopaths. They hide behind mask physical and ideological. This is evidenced in how the work by manipulation people and using fear tactics.

It's an unpopular opinion because nobody outside of that whacko nutter group believes it. Not even most of the Left in general.

Hard to reconcile that with the fact the majority of the left think most of Trump supporters are racist.

 

[Skwim]

Are you suggesting that absent specific reasoning, no reasoning exists?

Surely you can employ better logic than that.

When any statement is qualified, it indicates a singular reason for what follows. You didn't give your kid an ice cream cone because he was four feet tall or hit his sister. No! you gave your kid an ice cream cone for the singular reason that he was good. Now, if you never qualified your action for giving him the ice cream cone it could be for any reason in the world; maybe because he has brown eyes or sassed his teacher; however, by announcing a singular reason, that reason and only that reason gives meaning to what follows.

.

 

[Curious George]

When any statement is qualified, it indicates a singular reason for what follows. You didn't give your kid an ice cream cone because he was four feet tall or hit his sister. No! you gave your kid an ice cream cone for the singular reason that he was good. Now, if you never qualified your action for giving him the ice cream cone it could be for any reason in the world; maybe because he has brown eyes or sassed his teacher; however, by announcing a singular reason, that reason and only that reason gives meaning to what follows.

.

Incorrect. You seem to think that lists must be exhaustive and exclusive. You are wrong.

 

[Skwim]

Incorrect. You seem to think that lists must be exhaustive and exclusive. You are wrong.

Have a good day.

.

 

[Curious George]

Have a good day.

.

You as well.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Tell that to the 1,000 that showed up in Boston.

From how far away?

Most are narcissistic sociopaths. They hide behind mask physical and ideological. This is evidenced in how the work by manipulation people and using fear tactics.

That's just being paranoid. Most real life, real people want all the hyper-partisan crap on both sides to stop. It's only in a fake world that exists in front of cameras and on a screen that people suddenly really care about all this crap. Lots of ardent Conservatives (I would just say "Right" if I put in similar terms as you) who are featured in places such as Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and Alex Jones have went on for years and years and years about LGBT rights. I've met several real people who want Conservatives to shut up about it because they personally don't care, it doesn't effect them, and never hear about it until a Conservative starts complaining.
On the internet, yeah, people are squirrel **** nutty. But you still can't believe everything you see on TV, and we need to include "and the internet." Real people aren't Twitter Mobs, they aren't repeating Alex Jones, and they're tired of it all. They care about real issues. Not demonizing each other.

 

[Enoch07]

That's just being paranoid.

Unfortunately it's not. Its true.

Most real life, real people want all the hyper-partisan crap on both sides to stop.

I agree, most moderates, centrist, swing voters/independent voters/ and regular conservatives are all tired of the far left/far rights BS.

They care about real issues. Not demonizing each other.

I've been saying this for years. But it's a futile fight, no compromise to be found.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

But it's a futile fight, no compromise to be found.

And yet, even according to the study I cited, most people are willing to compromise. Most people are not those going "BLARGH! ROAR!" on the internet.

 

[Enoch07]

And yet, even according to the study I cited, most people are willing to compromise.

I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[Shad]

No, because I have known gun collectors and people who collect guns like some people collect used magazines. People who "collect guns," for example, often do not have guns of historic significance. They are big into fire power and rate of fire, however. "Gun collectors," on the other hand, often have 19th century Colts and Remingtons as a piece of Western American history in their collection, along with "war guns" like guns used in the Civil war or WW1/2.

You are assuming collectors must be focused on history instead of just collecting. .

 

[Jollybear]

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.

.

Actually lets get the facts streaght here. The malitia IS THE CIVILIANS. I gave you the founding fathers quotes on the words "arms" and "malitia" and they refer to the civilians, NOT the government.

In fact, two of the quotes actually refered to children arming themselves.

You are badly mistaken on who the malitia is.

 

[Jollybear]

Whatever the US Constitution means by "militia," Article 1 Section 8 gives Congress the power "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia."

If the entire US populace is "the militia," then Congress has the power to provide for your arming - i.e. decide what sorts of guns you have - and to provide for your disciplining - i.e. decide how you can use those weapons and punish you if you disobey.

"Clause 15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Clause 16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

This is refering to the government malitia.

Theres two malitias, government that protects its people from invations and then malitias that put in check government tyranny.

The constitution makes clear both.

Also the definition of the word malitia reveals both

> "a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.
"creating a militia was no answer to the army's manpower problem"

• a military force that engages in rebel or terrorist activities in opposition to a regular army.
• all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service."

Also, the founding fathers mention who has the rights to bear arms and who the malitia is and what its purpose is for.

We the citizens have this right and are a malitia according to the founders. Here are the founders quotes.

Gun Quotes From Our Founding Fathers – 2nd Amendment

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This is refering to the government malitia.

Theres two malitias, government that protects its people from invations and then malitias that put in check government tyranny.

The constitution makes clear both.

The phrase "thevgovernment militia" doesn't appear in the Constitution.

The phrase "the Army" does appear in the Constitution. The context makes it clear that "the militia" in Article 1, Section 8 is not the Army.

The phrase "the militia" implies that there is only one militia.

 

[Skwim]

Actually lets get the facts streaght here. The malitia IS THE CIVILIANS. I gave you the founding fathers quotes on the words "arms" and "malitia" and they refer to the civilians, NOT the government.

In fact, two of the quotes actually refered to children arming themselves.

You are badly mistaken on who the malitia is.

Where have I ever said the well armed militia as mentioned in the second Amendment wasn't to be comprised of civilians?

.

 

[Curious George]

"Clause 15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Clause 16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

This is refering to the government malitia.

Theres two malitias, government that protects its people from invations and then malitias that put in check government tyranny.

The constitution makes clear both.

Also the definition of the word malitia reveals both

> "a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.
"creating a militia was no answer to the army's manpower problem"

• a military force that engages in rebel or terrorist activities in opposition to a regular army.
• all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service."

Also, the founding fathers mention who has the rights to bear arms and who the malitia is and what its purpose is for.

We the citizens have this right and are a malitia according to the founders. Here are the founders quotes.

Gun Quotes From Our Founding Fathers – 2nd Amendment

One militia.

 

[Jollybear]

Where have I ever said the well armed militia as mentioned in the second Amendment wasn't to be comprised of civilians?

.

I thought you wer saying or implying the malitia refered to the government military. If im mistaken on what you thought there, then i take it back.

 

[Jollybear]

The phrase "thevgovernment militia" doesn't appear in the Constitution.

The phrase "the Army" does appear in the Constitution. The context makes it clear that "the militia" in Article 1, Section 8 is not the Army.

The phrase "the militia" implies that there is only one militia.

Im going with common sense on this. The PURPOSE of government is to protect its civilians civil and national liberty.

If the government turns tyranny, the civilians need to put it in check.

Thus, TWO malitias.

Plus, dont forget the founders quotes i gave you. They tell us the broad context of what they mean by who the malitia is and who bears arms.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You're jumping to conclusion there.

I said they'd be more accurate and reliable with a weapon in their hand.

No. I was right on the money. Your claim was that the people were the militia and you would take hunters over a non-hunter any day. What other conclusion could there be?

I could have listed a lot of examples that I didn't. What is significant about Afghanistan?

You completley ignored Afghanistan then eh? Also other counties miltaries are not as advanced as the U.S.. So they don't have the same advantages as the U.S.

I am not sure what this has to do with the limitations of guerilla warfare.

Ultimately they do as sentient human beings.

Sure. I am not certain this in an area of contention between us. Like I said, I misunderstood what you were saying. You were talking about the use of the military to stamp out a rebellion, when I thought you were talking about the military deciding who they would defen

Sure thing comrade.

Are you a commie now?

Notes on The Party, Reform, Revolution and the Myth of Spontaneity in Rosa Luxemburg - Democratic Socialists of America (DSA)

Political Revolution 101 - Democratic Socialists of America (DSA)

Reform & Revolution

From Debs to the DSA? Rescuing America’s Revolutionary Tradition

Pinellas DSA Political Revolution Launch

All this propaganda is not a rebellion that would need military involvement. I would say you are jumping to conclusions here.

Nah but a mission statement does.

I wouldn't. Walmart has a mission statement. So does Ducks Unlimited. Having a mission statement is only a matter of writing one.

It is made up of the poor and working class, mostly. You even said so yourself.

No. I said the majority of the military is made up of the middle classes. That is what the statistics indicate. You agreed with me.

So you think poor people are stupid and insubordinate?

Where is this coming from? Is this part of your standard deflection or did you roll this out for a field trial?

So you think that only stupid people serve in the military?

Not surprising, the mask has been slipping for years.

I am not sure what you mean?