Can someone argue this logic?

Admitting to being a Zionist should raise the eyebrows the same as admitting being a member of the KKK. Zionism is a form of supremacist philosophy in which Jews are to rule over non Jews.




Where?

Buddy, you're really beginning to irk me, to be honest.

Where is Zionism defined as that? Or is it simply a "conspiracy?" I presume that over your logic. But either way, I don't quite see how supporting a nations right to exist can be defined as a form of supremacist philosophy. And "Jews ruling over non-Jews?" That one actually made me laugh. Where exactly might it say that? In fairy land, perhaps? ;)
 
I made a knock-out-of the park speech on this, if only I could find the outline.
 
But then wouldn't the people only be able to bear arms if a militia arises?

As I said before, the people have to have their own firearms and be practiced with them at all times. We can't have a pile of firearms around someplace and then just give them to the people when needed. Who would we trust to keep that pile of firearms anyway? It would be much too easy for that pile of firearms to be taken away just as they were needed. Each person keeping his own firearms is the only way to ensure they are distributed and ready should the need arise. Each person has the obligation to maintain his own firearm and be able to use it properly should the need arise. People can not practice with firearms they don't have.
 
Zarxrax, some great quotes there. The one from George Washington really struck home.

The second amendment has been in place for 125 years and accepted and understood as the individual's right to bear arms. This has never changed. I fail to see how it can be argued really.
 
It says the right of the people to bare arms. It's so clear I don't know how to make it clearer. If it wasn't the right of the people than why did the government let the people own arms for over 200 years? The logic does not follow. A militia is made up of people. The people who have the indivdual right to bare arms. They also have the right to form a militia as they so choose. The part well regulated means well prepared. People inherently have rights. The government's so called purpose is to protect those rights not grant them. You have the right to bare arms irregardless of the government. It's up to you if you want to exercise them.
 
Last edited:
Gutteck,

You need to knock it off with the Zionist stuff. The TS asked an honest question and deserves an honest answer.
 
All right. So I was in this debate with this one person a few days back. Right? About gun laws, and the second amendment, specifically. They brought up the point that the second amendment pertained to militias, and not individuals.

"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."


He argued that it was saying that it gave the right for militias to be armed. Not individuals. He pointed out that "being necessary to the security of a free state," was a detail that was added in, and that it was all one thought. So it was literally, "a well regulated militia to keep and bear arms is the right of the people."

Anyone? Opinions? Thoughts?

If Jefferson would have wanted only the militia to have weapons, then normal citizens would not have had guns under the early union.

This was not the case.

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms"

"the people" is different than "the militia"

http://youtube.com/watch?v=4MQmOEA1s8g
 
Last edited:
Buddy, you're really beginning to irk me, to be honest.

Where is Zionism defined as that? Or is it simply a "conspiracy?" I presume that over your logic. But either way, I don't quite see how supporting a nations right to exist can be defined as a form of supremacist philosophy. And "Jews ruling over non-Jews?" That one actually made me laugh. Where exactly might it say that? In fairy land, perhaps? ;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_General_Assembly_Resolution_3379

However, it was revoked a few years back.
 
Last edited:
An Excellent Link

All right. So I was in this debate with this one person a few days back. Right? About gun laws, and the second amendment, specifically. They brought up the point that the second amendment pertained to militias, and not individuals.

"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."


He argued that it was saying that it gave the right for militias to be armed. Not individuals. He pointed out that "being necessary to the security of a free state," was a detail that was added in, and that it was all one thought. So it was literally, "a well regulated militia to keep and bear arms is the right of the people."

Anyone? Opinions? Thoughts?

I have a great link that should help you get a better understanding of the Founders' intent for the Second Amendment. It is called "The Founders Constitution," and you can view it here. I hope this helps you, Patriot123.
 
It protects and mentions more than one natural right, just as many of the other amendments do.

By natural right, I mean a a right that pre-empts any government, a right that belongs to each person regardless of time or place or government, simply by virtue of being born a human being, you have these rights.

The two mentioned in the 2nd address the right of people, collectively, to provide for their common defense at a local or community level, and the second part addresses the right of each and every person to keep and bear arms as an individual.

What kind of arms?

Well, as Tenche Cox put it:

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every terrible implement of the soldier are the birthright of Americans. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but where, I trust in God, it will always remain, in the hands of the people."

I'm an absolutist when comes to this, I think that every weapon that is commonly issued or used by a modern day soldier should be available for purchase by a citizen as well. Yes, that includes full auto rifles, grenades, rocket launchers and so on.

Bottom line the 2nd protects two, related but different, rights at the same time.
 
Hey, Anti Federalist, can I own a fully operational tank in your opinion, that would be fun.
 
All right. So I was in this debate with this one person a few days back. Right? About gun laws, and the second amendment, specifically. They brought up the point that the second amendment pertained to militias, and not individuals.

"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."


He argued that it was saying that it gave the right for militias to be armed. Not individuals. He pointed out that "being necessary to the security of a free state," was a detail that was added in, and that it was all one thought. So it was literally, "a well regulated militia to keep and bear arms is the right of the people."

Anyone? Opinions? Thoughts?

Ask him to define the "militia."

If he says "national guard" -- tell him that doesn't make any sense, because if they are under the command of the US Executive branch and the US Army Generals, then they are really just the "Army Reserve" (aka a local "standing army" ...just one that occasionally sits down) but under a different name (aka euphemism), but they are NOT militia.

Ask him again to define the "militia."
 
All right. So I was in this debate with this one person a few days back. Right? About gun laws, and the second amendment, specifically. They brought up the point that the second amendment pertained to militias, and not individuals.

"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."


He argued that it was saying that it gave the right for militias to be armed. Not individuals. He pointed out that "being necessary to the security of a free state," was a detail that was added in, and that it was all one thought. So it was literally, "a well regulated militia to keep and bear arms is the right of the people."

Anyone? Opinions? Thoughts?

Reasoning changes, facts don't. If it was about militias being armed, it would have read

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of militias to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It doesn't. The first part is also irrelevant. The founders could have been high on mushrooms and wrote

"Fried chicken being delicious, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

And it would mean the exact same thing. Bearing arms is a right of the people.
 
All of the bill of rights are individual rights, not collective rights. It would make no sense for only the 2nd amendment to be a collective right. Also, just look up a dictionary from back then on what a militia was - individual gunowners.

This is a basic result of being brainwashed in the communist schools - collectivism = govt. owns everything, controls the money supply (and counterfeits it) , taxes you like a slave etc. and only gives you a gun to go work as an agent of the govt. to go opppress other slaves who get out of line.

Ed Vieira has written extensively on this subject. If you read some of his stuff and , for instance, the Georgia militia law from the 1760's , you will obviously see what the 2nd amendment is all about. Dr. V is also very big on sound money. He has authored laws for states such as New Hampshire to do transactions in gold and silver. He has writtten a huge book called "Pieces of Eight" on money.

Here is an excerpt :

http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin12.htm

In every Colony and independent State from the mid-1600s to the late 1700s immediately prior to ratification of the Constitution, the Militia consisted of every able-bodied male, typically from 16 to 50 or 60 years of age, each of whom was required by law to keep in his personal possession at home a firearm suitable for military use (for most of them a musket or rifle, for some a brace of pistols), together with a supply of ammunition (assembled cartridges, black powder, and lead shot); a bayonet, tomahawk, or sword; and other accoutrements necessary to outfit an infantry soldier or cavalry trooper.

Throughout the original thirteen Colonies and States, the laws required each Militiaman to buy his own arms and ammunition in the free market--thus implicitly guaranteeing the existence and operation of such a market. If he were under 21 years of age, or an apprentice or servant, though, a Militiaman could require his parents or employer to supply him with a suitable firearm and ammunition. If he were one of the working poor, he might receive assistance from his local government in obtaining a job through which to earn the money to buy them. And local governments, or very often the Militia, provided publicly owned arms to those individuals too poor to purchase them on their own account. That is, We the People always required themselves to provide themselves with firearms, either directly as individuals, or indirectly through the Militia in which they served or the public officials whom they elected.
 
Hey, Anti Federalist, can I own a fully operational tank in your opinion, that would be fun.

You already can do that, there are quite few people around the country who do own one.

I know a few people who have miniguns mounted on private helicopters as well.

But try to get your hands on a LAWS rocket or RPG.
 
Last edited:
In a life and death crisis, often seconds count. The police are minutes away. What are you gonna do?

If guns are outlawed, only outlaws ( including government thugs ) will have guns.

Hitler and Stalin were both HUGE fans of gun registration ........ control ......... and then confiscation.

"IF the government cannot trust the people with guns, can the people trust the government?"

"Governments prefer unarmed peasants."

"Politicians love disarmed peasants."
 
All right. So I was in this debate with this one person a few days back. Right? About gun laws, and the second amendment, specifically. They brought up the point that the second amendment pertained to militias, and not individuals.

"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."


He argued that it was saying that it gave the right for militias to be armed. Not individuals. He pointed out that "being necessary to the security of a free state," was a detail that was added in, and that it was all one thought. So it was literally, "a well regulated militia to keep and bear arms is the right of the people."

Anyone? Opinions? Thoughts?

So they left out the "and" and threw in "being necessary to".

This is how I read it:

A well regulated militia shall not be infringed. AND
The security of a free state shall not be infringed. AND
The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

All being necessary to each other.
 
".....the RIGHT of the PEOPLE to keep and bare arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."

The first part of the sentence is only redundant support for the Right.
 
Back
Top