isadore;1876461 wrote:You are partially true in your claim of not being a braggart. You are much more a fraud than a braggart. All these claims you make on how easy it would be for you to obtain an automatic weapon with absolutely no foundation in fact. Your expertise is even more brought into doubt by your admission you have never bought a firearm of any sort. Mass murders, motivated by a wish for a high body count, often with intellect and resources, have been unable to obtain these weapons.
I stated that I believed people who sell illegal weapons are scum, they cause deaths. I did not tie my opinion to any ethnic group, but you did. You claimed young African Americans were most involved with illegal weapons. The charge reflected your prejudices, not my statement or the fact
Once again, you're showing your ignorance if you think one is required to have purchased something in order to know where to find it.
Do you think a person who has never bought weed would find it particularly difficult? Meth? Opioids? If not, why do you think firearms are so different? Because you think the laws on the books currently are particularly effective? Hilarious.
Are they harder to acquire than legal ones? Sure. So, if a legal one will do the trick, does it make sense to opt for a legal one? Of course.
But only a fool continues to conflate being able to do something and actually doing it.
I could tell you where to buy weed, as well. Not because I'm special, but because everyone knows how to get it.
isadore;1876461 wrote:At the beginning of the Revolutionary War, the large majority of the colonists viewed themselves as English. The army they raised was not to fight England, but to resist a tyrannical king. They were following a many century English tradition going back to 1215 and Runnymede. Even the body of the Declaration was not a list of complaints about England but against George III.
From the late colonial army occupation and the war the colonists came away with a hatred of monarchy and standing armies. The early republic kept it army miniscule and on the frontier. In this period the militia was to be relied on to suppress Shay’s and the Whiskey Rebellions. Even in the War of 1812 the vast majority of the troops and the leading Generals Andrew Jackson and William Henry Harrison were militia.
The Founders feared a standing army. And they wrote their alternative into the Constitution. In Article I, II, IV, 5[SUP]th[/SUP] Amendment. And in the 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] the Founders spelled out its importance, why people would be given the right to bear arms. “A well regulated (government controlled) Militia, being necessary for the security of a free state (something they did not say about an army) we will let you have guns.
I was being descriptive and I never dig in my “heals”.
Just ... stop.
I have never seen someone fight so hard to try to make someone else agree with them.
I never never contended that the militia was smaller. The army was necessarily smaller, because it wasn't funded like a large army. But the militia WAS subordinate to the army in both the American Revolution and the War of 1812.
Show me where they stipulated that "well-regulated" means government-controlled. I'll wait.
And yes. At that time, the militia were absolutely necessary for the security of a free state. The army was, what, 50K large? The militia had to be five to ten times that size. However, as I just stated (and as can be abundantly found), the militia took orders from the army.
Moreover, you're conflating something else, as well. You're conflating what the founders explicitly refer to as a "right" and what you're viewing as permission.
Taking away the justification clause, the Second Amendment says, "The
right of the people to keep and bear arms shall no be infringed." They did not say, "Permission will be granted for people to keep and bear arms."
They refer to the keeping and bearing of arms as a "right," and they gave the contemporary need for a militia as sufficient grounds for nobody to try to infringe on that right.
However, REGARDLESS of how you wish to interpret the militia clause (and you're doing that wrong already, but I digress, as it's mostly irrelevant), the fact that they use the term "right" to refer to the act of keeping and bearing arms, as well as the word "infringe" as the term used to describe the absence of that right, means an understanding of basic English, even at a level that shrugs off time-based contextual nuance, is sufficient to note that they deemed the ability to keep and bear arms as the default right of human beings, with an attempt to restrict that right being an infringement, and not merely a withholding of permission.
If something requires permission, it is not a right. It is a privilege. Like you being able to live in blissful ignorance of where to find illegal contraband for sale.
If you need a reference point for what the word "right" means when it is used in the Bill of Rights, see every other right listed in the document and let the drafters' own words interpret themselves. A "right" is a freedom that someone has simply for being a person.
And frankly, the right to self-ownership ... that is, the right to possess my own body and make decisions about it ... is meaningless without the right for me, the owner of that body, to protect it with whatever force is necessary to do so against agents trying to infringe on it.
Now, the beauty of this is that rights are neither permissions nor obligations. Your right to adequately defend yourself is not a permission, but neither is it a mandate. You don't have to own a gun. You are free to tell people it's a bad idea to own a gun.
But it is a "right," and not an allowance, to keep and bear arms. If you think they got that wrong, you're free to make your case. The case you're trying to make right now, however, is nonsense, and it isn't worthy of further recognition. Come up with better support ... hell, ANY sound support ... or your position is worthy of little more than being ignored.
