The_Dude Posted February 14, 2018 Posted February 14, 2018 (edited) 3 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said: The Second Amendment is vague if you don't understand how the English language works. Do you not understand how the English language works? I understand you’re a !@#$ who likes to talk loose on the internet. I understand that. And it is vague you dumb son of a B word bc we don’t what they meant by “well regulated” or even “militia.” But shitcunts without education have a hard time understanding legal jargon. Edited February 14, 2018 by The_Dude
IDBillzFan Posted February 14, 2018 Posted February 14, 2018 1 minute ago, The_Dude said: I understand you’re a !@#$ who likes to talk loose on the internet. I understand that. But the English language, not so much.
TakeYouToTasker Posted February 14, 2018 Posted February 14, 2018 5 minutes ago, The_Dude said: I understand you’re a !@#$ who likes to talk loose on the internet. I understand that. And it is vague you dumb son of a B word bc we don’t what they meant by “well regulated” or even “militia.” But shitcunts without education have a hard time understanding legal jargon. No, you don't understand much at all. You frequently make poor arguments out of ignorance. This is another clear example. The Constitution was written at roughly a 5th grade reading level, in the plain English of the day. This is by design. If you diagram the !@#$ing sentence, and understand the meanings of the words in use at the time it was written, and the surrounding source material (Federalist, anti-Federalist, etc) there is zero ambiguity. Your argument is intellectually lazy and ignorant.
LeviF Posted February 14, 2018 Posted February 14, 2018 (edited) 40 minutes ago, The_Dude said: Look guy, if anybody try’s to take my guns I’ll kill them. I’m about the right to bear arms. But the 2nd amendment is vague. All I’m sayin. I don't think it's vague at all. "Shall not be infringed" is clear enough. Militia, if you didn't know, is actually defined in 10 USC § 246. That was written in the early 1900's, so if you want to go back to the Federalist Papers and the original intent of the word "militia," it was essentially all able-bodied men of reasonable age. The Federalist papers use the term "regulated" in terms of the militia to mean something wholly different than what gun-grabbers want it to mean. 29 and 46 are particularly relevant. Edited February 14, 2018 by LeviF91
DC Tom Posted February 14, 2018 Posted February 14, 2018 8 hours ago, The_Dude said: “Prior to the American Revolution there was neither budget nor manpower nor government desire to maintain a full-time army. Therefore, the armed citizen-soldier carried the responsibility. Service in militia, including providing one's own ammunition and weapons, was mandatory for all men. Yet, as early as the 1790s, the mandatory universal militia duty evolved gradually to voluntary militia units and a reliance on a regular army. Throughout the 19th century the institution of the organized civilian militia began to decline.[1]:10 The unorganized civilian militia, however, still remains even in current U.S. law, consisting of essentially everyone from age 17 to 45, while also including former military officers up to age 64, as codified in 10 U.S.C. § 246” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_States i can’t remember where I read that other than Wikipedia just now, but I know I’ve read it in a couple sources. American men were required to own a firearm and shot. COLONIAL America, you dumbass. Learn to read.
TakeYouToTasker Posted February 14, 2018 Posted February 14, 2018 (edited) 11 minutes ago, DC Tom said: COLONIAL America, you dumbass. Learn to read. Good point. I never should have pressed him on sentence structure until he has mastered the basics. Edited February 14, 2018 by TakeYouToTasker
B-Man Posted February 14, 2018 Posted February 14, 2018 Florida high school shooting: Live updates - CNN.com https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/14/us/florida-school-shooting/index.html 50 mins ago ‘SCUMBAG Alert’: Sen. Chris Murphy wastes NO time turning Fla. school shooting into gun control push .
row_33 Posted February 14, 2018 Posted February 14, 2018 There really aren't too many news options to source these days.... CNN does a good job with live footage.
The_Dude Posted February 14, 2018 Posted February 14, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, DC Tom said: COLONIAL America, you dumbass. Learn to read. 1776. Learn to math. And read the whole damn thing. And was colonial America not America? I mean I consider it so but for legalities we cannot start till succession. And then some argue that we can’t even argue until the ratification of the constitution. Edited February 14, 2018 by The_Dude
The_Dude Posted February 14, 2018 Posted February 14, 2018 1 hour ago, TakeYouToTasker said: No, you don't understand much at all. You frequently make poor arguments out of ignorance. This is another clear example. The Constitution was written at roughly a 5th grade reading level, in the plain English of the day. This is by design. If you diagram the !@#$ing sentence, and understand the meanings of the words in use at the time it was written, and the surrounding source material (Federalist, anti-Federalist, etc) there is zero ambiguity. Your argument is intellectually lazy and ignorant. Ok....you’re an idiot. I will not converse with you after this. You’re an idiot because you do not see the issue with “militia,” and “well regulated.” Whats a militia? Who’s in charge of the militia? From whom does the militia get its logistics? Is their governmental oversight of the militia? Was the militia supposed to be free from governmental regulation? If so why did they include “well regulated?” What do they mean by “well regulated?” How did they intend it to be regulated? Cause them’s are question that I can’t answer from: ” 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 constitution is simple? Mother !@#$er, what the !@#$ do you think the goddamn SCOTUS is for? We gotta have 9 of the best and most experienced legal minds to tell us what a document written at a fifth grade level says? You’re a jackass. I would destroy you in any environment. You don’t deserve a freaking place at the table with me.
Cinga Posted February 14, 2018 Posted February 14, 2018 1 hour ago, TakeYouToTasker said: The Constitution was written at roughly a 5th grade reading level, in the plain English of the day. This is by design. This is exactly correct.... I get what Dude is saying, because we have been told this for years, that is why we need the courts to determine it's hidden meanings... But to Dude, TYTT is correct, in that it was written in simple Laymens terms on purpose, so that anyone could read it and understand it. Remember, the drafters still has to go back to their states and convince the population to ratify this Constitution, so they made sure that all of it was cut and dry, and easy to understand. No hidden meanings, no reason for the courts to have to rule on the understanding of it...
Nanker Posted February 14, 2018 Posted February 14, 2018 12 minutes ago, The_Dude said: 1776. Learn to math. 1
/dev/null Posted February 14, 2018 Posted February 14, 2018 14 minutes ago, The_Dude said: 1776. Learn to math. publick ejacayshun werkt
The_Dude Posted February 14, 2018 Posted February 14, 2018 3 minutes ago, Nanker said: 2 minutes ago, /dev/null said: publick ejacayshun werkt Something I can clarify for you two? 4 minutes ago, Cinga said: No hidden meanings, no reason for the courts to have to rule on the understanding of it... In your mind, what is it that the Supreme Court does? Hackie sack?
IDBillzFan Posted February 14, 2018 Posted February 14, 2018 58 minutes ago, B-Man said: Florida high school shooting: Live updates - CNN.com https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/14/us/florida-school-shooting/index.html 50 mins ago ‘SCUMBAG Alert’: Sen. Chris Murphy wastes NO time turning Fla. school shooting into gun control push . We're going to find out this was a kid who had a girl reject his box of Valentines' Day candy, and finally the country will come together and ban Valentines Day so no more children can be hurt by this ridiculous freaking holiday.
Cinga Posted February 14, 2018 Posted February 14, 2018 3 minutes ago, The_Dude said: Something I can clarify for you two? In your mind, what is it that the Supreme Court does? Hackie sack? Have you ever heard of jury nullification? It was never the original intent to have the courts rule on the Constitutionality of a law, THAT is the domain left to the People. The courts were to interpret the law, and to preside over trials. My argument is simple, and if you read any of the Federalist Papers you will see what I mean... We are always told there are 3 branches of government too right? But what are the very first words of the Constitution? If we have 3 branches of government, who presides over them? Well, the ones who established those branches to begin with.... You see, We the People are the 4th branch, and presiding branch of government. While we could exist without the others, they cannot exist without us...
TakeYouToTasker Posted February 14, 2018 Posted February 14, 2018 (edited) 55 minutes ago, The_Dude said: Hold my beer... The terms "militia" and "well regulated" conform to the common understanding of those words in the time they were written. There is ample source material: Federalist and anti-Federalist Papers, Black's, and even the US code which outlines the meanings of those words; and the simple diagraming of the sentence in question allows anyone with a 5th grade reading level to understand that "well regulated" modifies "militia", not the right to bear arms whose only modification is "shall not be infringed". As to the purpose of the Court, it requires the most revisionist historical perspective imaginable to ignore Marbury v Madison, where the Court awarded itself a power not expressly outlined in the Constitution. The Document does not require the Court's understanding. Stare Decisis requires the Courts understanding, as the Court no longer rules on the document itself, but rather on the body of law they themselves created with the power they usurped. And you're right, I don't belong at the children's table with you. I'm more than happy at the grownup's table where we don't **** our pants or throw our food. Also, it's probably for the best that you've decided against responding anymore, given how badly you're getting your ignorant ass kicked every time you open your mouth. Edited February 14, 2018 by TakeYouToTasker
The_Dude Posted February 14, 2018 Posted February 14, 2018 Just now, Cinga said: My argument is simple, and if you read any of the Federalist Papers you will see what I mean... We are always told there are 3 branches of government too right? But what are the very first words of the Constitution? If we have 3 branches of government, who presides over them? Well, the ones who established those branches to begin with.... You see, We the People are the 4th branch, and presiding branch of government. While we could exist without the others, they cannot exist without us... Ive read the federalist papers. The one thing about them though is that while they’re a great primary source they also cannot be used to establish a baseline for the founders because there were many views. You cannot have law without ambiguity when it’s common law. I prefer the 12 Tables to our Constitution. And clearly the SCOTUS is essential in trying to answer complex questions about our common law. If they (the founders) wanted a straight forward document they’d have come up with something like the 12 tables. But they didn’t. Why? There wasn’t much they agreed on. Like whether black people were in fact people.
TakeYouToTasker Posted February 14, 2018 Posted February 14, 2018 (edited) For the abject morons in the room, here is a link to Webster's Dictionary from 1828 Quote Militia MILI'TIA, noun [Latin from miles, a soldier; Gr. war, to fight, combat, contention. The primary sense of fighting is to strive, struggle, drive, or to strike, to beat, Eng. moil, Latin molior; Heb. to labor or toil.] The body of soldiers in a state enrolled for discipline, but not engaged in actual service except in emergencies; as distinguished from regular troops, whose sole occupation is war or military service. The militia of a country are the able bodied men organized into companies, regiments and brigades, with officers of all grades, and required by law to attend military exercises on certain days only, but at other times left to pursue their usual occupations. You'll note that the definition itself includes mention of the laws surrounding militias. These are the regulations being spoken of. The sentence structure of the Second Amendment provides the government the authority to "regulate the militia". This means that the government has the authority to organize the militia to attend military exercises, given the common understanding of what the term militia means. This is consistent with the rest of the document written at the time, in which the Document painstaking lays out all the actions the Federal government is permitted to take. This is measured language, as it assigns a very specific power to the government. Edited February 14, 2018 by TakeYouToTasker
Recommended Posts