[Ed] Jesus Guns Babies - Page 3

Steve · 25th February 2022, 04:22 AM

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

I bet this hangs on the wall of some homes in Trumplandia:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...5a737b4212.jpg

Charles Manson teaching a baby to kill?

Donal · 25th February 2022, 09:50 AM

Originally Posted by bruto

Now, for a limited time, the makers of the junior assault rifle bring you the PRINCE OF PEACEMAKER® in senior and junior sizes.

No more mister nice guy. He's coming back, and this time he's packing!

Jesus II: The Second Coming

The Gospel says "he whole lives by the sword dies by the sword" but it doesn't say anything about an AR-15.

d4m10n · 25th February 2022, 02:08 PM

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

You limited it to foreign 'tyrants" like George III and Charles III and asked "what was it intended to do?" I expanded it to include internal rebellions and other internal threats.

Granted.

This leaves open the question of whether non-foreign tyranny should be on the list of internal threats or not.

Stacyhs · 25th February 2022, 03:38 PM

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Granted.

This leaves open the question of whether non-foreign tyranny should be on the list of internal threats or not.

Of course it does. When, and if, tyranny actually occurs. Screaming that being told to wear a mask during a killer pandemic does not. Nor does saying large companies' employees must get vaccinated or show proof of a medical reason not to during a pandemic that has killed almost 1 MILLION Americans. Nor was Obama resorting to XO's when the GOP controlled Congress obstructed everything he tried to do. Nor was an amnesty plan for Dreamers. All of which Republicans put forth as examples 'tyranny'.

Dr. Keith · 25th February 2022, 03:45 PM

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Granted.

This leaves open the question of whether non-foreign tyranny should be on the list of internal threats or not.

But it is only to protect the state from tyranny. Not the individual from tyranny by the state. Which I think is the question you are trying to get to. But I hesitate to put words in your mouth.

d4m10n · 25th February 2022, 04:35 PM

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith

But it is only to protect the state from tyranny. Not the individual from tyranny by the state. Which I think is the question you are trying to get to.

The question I'm trying to get to at the moment is whether "The concept of resistance to tyranny has always been part of the 2A landscape," as Warp12 said at #12.

Originally Posted by newyorkguy

Guns because we have the right to protect ourselves from tyranny.[/i] It's no longer about protecting ourselves from criminals, it's about protecting ourselves from...tyranny? Seriously?

At least one legal scholar has seriously argued that it was originally about collective protection against tyranny rather than individual protection against criminals.

Stacyhs · 25th February 2022, 04:50 PM

Originally Posted by d4m10n

The question I'm trying to get to at the moment is whether "The concept of resistance to tyranny has always been part of the 2A landscape," as Warp12 said at #12.

I think that's true. But what the 2A really related to was having a 'well-organized militia' to deal with that. I think it does not mean that every Tom, Dick, and Harriet has the right to own assault style weapons. But I'm not going to get into that argument.

Lurch · 25th February 2022, 05:57 PM

If we could resurrect the Founders, one must wonder: What would they make of today's gun-strokers shrieking about the 2A, the proliferation of guns, the 30,000+ deaths by gunfire annually (a million in a generation), and the phenomenon of mass shootings. I imagine they would recoil at the insanity.

I posit that the American mind has been rendered mad through a convenient misinterpretation of one poorly worded sentence.

Stacyhs · 25th February 2022, 06:23 PM

Originally Posted by Lurch

If we could resurrect the Founders, one must wonder: What would they make of today's gun-strokers shrieking about the 2A, the proliferation of guns, the 30,000+ deaths by gunfire annually (a million in a generation), and the phenomenon of mass shootings. I imagine they would recoil at the insanity.

I posit that the American mind has been rendered mad through a convenient misinterpretation of one poorly worded sentence.

ZiprHead · 25th February 2022, 07:47 PM

Originally Posted by Lurch

If we could resurrect the Founders, one must wonder: What would they make of today's gun-strokers shrieking about the 2A, the proliferation of guns, the 30,000+ deaths by gunfire annually (a million in a generation), and the phenomenon of mass shootings. I imagine they would recoil at the insanity.

I posit that the American mind has been rendered mad through a convenient misinterpretation of one poorly worded sentence.

This site really needs a like or rep system.

Dr. Keith · 25th February 2022, 09:04 PM

Originally Posted by d4m10n

The question I'm trying to get to at the moment is whether "The concept of resistance to tyranny has always been part of the 2A landscape," as Warp12 said at #12.

At least one legal scholar has seriously argued that it was originally about collective protection against tyranny rather than individual protection against criminals.

I would seriously question the scholarship of anyone who says it is about personal safety or personal protection from criminals. There is no historical basis for that view. It is entirely modern.

If you read the text without an nra propaganda it is talking about the people having a responsibility to maintain the security of the state. Once we decided to have a standing army we really should have dropped this, too.

Stacyhs · 26th February 2022, 12:00 AM

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith

I would seriously question the scholarship of anyone who says it is about personal safety or personal protection from criminals. There is no historical basis for that view. It is entirely modern.

If you read the text without an nra propaganda it is talking about the people having a responsibility to maintain the security of the state. Once we decided to have a standing army we really should have dropped this, too.

gnome · 26th February 2022, 12:16 AM

Originally Posted by Trebuchet

Native Americans,

Oh yep when you're colonizing inhabited lands, it's handy to be armed just in case they object for some reason.

Stacyhs · 26th February 2022, 03:47 AM

Comedian Blaire Erksine parodies Kandiss Taylor's campaign ad. Taylor is so stupid she thought Erskine was a real supporter and included Erskine's parody in her media campaign. FF to 2:55 for the parody.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Regnad Kcin · 26th February 2022, 09:08 AM

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith

I would seriously question the scholarship of anyone who says it is about personal safety or personal protection from criminals. There is no historical basis for that view. It is entirely modern.

If you read the text without an nra propaganda it is talking about the people having a responsibility to maintain the security of the state. Once we decided to have a standing army we really should have dropped this, too.

Succinct and accurate. Well done.

d4m10n · 26th February 2022, 01:50 PM

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith

I would seriously question the scholarship of anyone who says it is about personal safety or personal protection from criminals. There is no historical basis for that view. It is entirely modern.

That's basically what the article I linked says, among other things.

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith

If you read the text without an nra propaganda it is talking about the people having a responsibility to maintain the security of the state.

How is this different from Ms. Taylor's interpretation?

https://twitter.com/KandissTaylor/st...62597258199041

Stacyhs · 26th February 2022, 03:10 PM

Originally Posted by d4m10n

That's basically what the article I linked says, among other things.

How is this different from Ms. Taylor's interpretation?

https://twitter.com/KandissTaylor/st...62597258199041

I think the difference comes in what one considers 'tyranny'. I highly suspect she considers mask mandates 'tyranny'.

Dr. Keith · 26th February 2022, 10:33 PM

Originally Posted by d4m10n

That's basically what the article I linked says, among other things.

How is this different from Ms. Taylor's interpretation?

https://twitter.com/KandissTaylor/st...62597258199041

We have a standing army. Something the founders never imagined. The army makes the militia of the 2A redundant. Unnecessary. Frivolous.

I’m assuming she disagrees, which is why you edited my post.

Eta: she talks about protecting “ourselves” while the 2A talks about protecting “the State”. You do see the difference, right?

Stacyhs · 27th February 2022, 12:10 AM

It's gotten to the point where a lot of these right-wingers think anything they disagree with is "tyranny"...especially if it comes from the left.

gnome · 27th February 2022, 01:34 AM

I think some people have no better understanding than to think of it as a game. They think calling something by the right term automatically qualifies it for universal opposition. They think it's the label, not the tyranny itself, that makes a tyrant hated.

d4m10n · 27th February 2022, 07:26 AM

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith

The army makes the militia of the 2A redundant. Unnecessary. Frivolous.

My brother-in-law was sent to Iraq back when the 45th infantry was deployed there. Does it make sense to say that reservists like him were part of a standing army rather than a well-regulated citizen militia?

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith

...she talks about protecting “ourselves” while the 2A talks about protecting “the State”.

The "free state" isn't made of infrastructure and documents, it is made of citizens.

d4m10n · 27th February 2022, 07:31 AM

*DUPLICATE POST*

Stacyhs · 27th February 2022, 03:31 PM

Originally Posted by d4m10n

My brother-in-law was sent to Iraq back when the 45th infantry was deployed there. Does it make sense to say that reservists like him were part of a standing army rather than a well-regulated citizen militia?

Reservists are part of a well-regulated militia not a 'standing army' unless activated.

The "free state" isn't made of infrastructure and documents, it is made of citizens.[/quote]

That sounds almost impressive but really isn't.

Dr. Keith · 27th February 2022, 10:08 PM

Originally Posted by d4m10n

My brother-in-law was sent to Iraq back when the 45th infantry was deployed there. Does it make sense to say that reservists like him were part of a standing army rather than a well-regulated citizen militia?

Reservist = militia. No problem.

Quote:

The "free state" isn't made of infrastructure and documents, it is made of citizens.

Ukrainian are fighting for their state. Retired cops shooting people in theaters are protecting themselves.

d4m10n · 28th February 2022, 05:59 AM

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith

Ukrainian are fighting for their state.

I don't think it's particularly difficult to find examples of the citizen militia protecting state functions much closer to home.

https://twitter.com/nbcwashington/st...85456578240513

Stacyhs · 28th February 2022, 12:13 PM

Originally Posted by d4m10n

I don't think it's particularly difficult to find examples of the citizen militia protecting state functions much closer to home.

https://twitter.com/nbcwashington/st...85456578240513

The National Guard is a 'well organized militia' under the command of the State.

I can't think of a single private 'citizen' group that calls itself a 'militia' that isn't a right-wing bunch of white supremacist nationalists and/or antigovernment extremists like the Oath Keepers and the 3 Percenters.

Dr. Keith · 28th February 2022, 04:26 PM

Originally Posted by d4m10n

I don't think it's particularly difficult to find examples of the citizen militia protecting state functions much closer to home.

https://twitter.com/nbcwashington/st...85456578240513

Your point?

Puppycow · 3rd June 2022, 10:38 PM

Just a couple relevant videos. One more directly relevant than the other, but both basically on topic.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Puppycow · 3rd June 2022, 10:53 PM

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

Comedian Blaire Erksine parodies Kandiss Taylor's campaign ad. Taylor is so stupid she thought Erskine was a real supporter and included Erskine's parody in her media campaign. FF to 2:55 for the parody.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

They spend a lot of time on the question of is she trolling us or is she really this dumb?

I don't know, but I think it's the latter. I don't think it's performance art like Vermin Supreme or Lord Buckethead, where the candidacy is only for the lulz.

Fast Eddie B · 4th June 2022, 04:58 AM

Originally Posted by Lurch

If we could resurrect the Founders, one must wonder: What would they make of today's gun-strokers shrieking about the 2A, the proliferation of guns, the 30,000+ deaths by gunfire annually (a million in a generation), and the phenomenon of mass shootings. I imagine they would recoil at the insanity.

I posit that the American mind has been rendered mad through a convenient misinterpretation of one poorly worded sentence.

I think they might say, “It’s a good thing we included a straightforward provision to repeal or modify any Amendment, or add new Amendments, in order to keep up with changing societal norms.” The problem right now is that “the people”, through their representatives, don’t support repealing or modifying the Second Amendment in sufficient numbers to make it happen. A single word change from “the right of the people…” to “the right of the militia…” would do it. I just don’t see it happening any time soon.

a_unique_person · 4th June 2022, 05:48 AM

Originally Posted by newyorkguy

Folks, it only gets worse.

Guns because we have the right to protect ourselves from tyranny. It's no longer about protecting ourselves from criminals, it's about protecting ourselves from...tyranny? Seriously?

H-E-L-P !!!

Jesus! Guns and Babies?

BobTheCoward · 4th June 2022, 07:33 AM

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith

I would seriously question the scholarship of anyone who says it is about personal safety or personal protection from criminals. There is no historical basis for that view. It is entirely modern.

If you read the text without an nra propaganda it is talking about the people having a responsibility to maintain the security of the state. Once we decided to have a standing army we really should have dropped this, too.

Yea. It would have been nice if they included a statement that a change to the need of the first clause would modify the actual rule in the second clause.

The Don · 4th June 2022, 09:53 AM

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

Yea. It would have been nice if they included a statement that a change to the need of the first clause would modify the actual rule in the second clause.

Maybe they thought it was so obvious that they didn't need to.

BobTheCoward · 4th June 2022, 10:36 AM

Originally Posted by The Don

Maybe they thought it was so obvious that they didn't need to.

Why would that be obvious? The reason for the rule does not modify the rule.

"high scoring, being necessary for the game, the 3 point line is 23 foot, 9 inches."

No matter how detrimental the line is to high scoring....it remains 23 foot 9 inches

d4m10n · 4th June 2022, 11:13 AM

Originally Posted by The Don

Maybe they thought it was so obvious that they didn't need to.

Indeed.

The authors of the amendment would've been aware of verba cum effectu accipienda sunt as a canon of constitutional construction.

Stacyhs · 4th June 2022, 11:22 AM

What would the Founders say? Probably: "We really had too much faith in "the people" having some common sense."

BobTheCoward · 4th June 2022, 11:27 AM

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Indeed.

The authors of the amendment would've been aware of verba cum effectu sunt accipienda as a canon of constitutional construction.

There is no given reason to apply that to the constitution.It isn't given intent of the author's doesn't matter.

d4m10n · 4th June 2022, 02:31 PM

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

There is no given reason to apply that to the constitution.

We're simply going to have to disagree on whether the traditional canons of constitutional construction should be applied when interpreting the constitution.

a_unique_person · 5th June 2022, 05:00 PM

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

What would the Founders say? Probably: "We really had too much faith in "the people" having some common sense."

IIRC they had no faith in "the people" having common sense.

rdaneel · 5th June 2022, 08:11 PM

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

IIRC they had no faith in "the people" having common sense.

In fact, I wonder if what they'd say is "See, this is what happens when you give the vote to people who aren't wealthy, white male, landowners".

25th February 2022, 04:22 AM	#81
Steve Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2005 Location: Sydney Nova Scotia Posts: 12,610	Originally Posted by Stacyhs I bet this hangs on the wall of some homes in Trumplandia: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...5a737b4212.jpg Charles Manson teaching a baby to kill?
	__________________ Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"

25th February 2022, 09:50 AM	#82
Donal Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 5,628	Originally Posted by bruto Now, for a limited time, the makers of the junior assault rifle bring you the PRINCE OF PEACEMAKER® in senior and junior sizes. No more mister nice guy. He's coming back, and this time he's packing! Jesus II: The Second Coming The Gospel says "he whole lives by the sword dies by the sword" but it doesn't say anything about an AR-15.
Donal Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 5,628	__________________ SuburbanNerd A blog for making tech make sense

25th February 2022, 02:08 PM	#83
d4m10n Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Mounts Farm Posts: 10,960	Originally Posted by Stacyhs You limited it to foreign 'tyrants" like George III and Charles III and asked "what was it intended to do?" I expanded it to include internal rebellions and other internal threats. Granted. This leaves open the question of whether non-foreign tyranny should be on the list of internal threats or not.
	__________________ Just reread theprestige's signature; still cannot recall anything about it.

25th February 2022, 03:45 PM	#85
Dr. Keith Not a doctor. Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Texas Posts: 25,592	Originally Posted by d4m10n Granted. This leaves open the question of whether non-foreign tyranny should be on the list of internal threats or not. But it is only to protect the state from tyranny. Not the individual from tyranny by the state. Which I think is the question you are trying to get to. But I hesitate to put words in your mouth.
	__________________ Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God. He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa If I had a pet panda I would name it Snowflake.

25th February 2022, 04:35 PM	#86
d4m10n Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Mounts Farm Posts: 10,960	Originally Posted by Dr. Keith But it is only to protect the state from tyranny. Not the individual from tyranny by the state. Which I think is the question you are trying to get to. The question I'm trying to get to at the moment is whether "The concept of resistance to tyranny has always been part of the 2A landscape," as Warp12 said at #12. Originally Posted by newyorkguy Guns because we have the right to protect ourselves from tyranny.[/i] It's no longer about protecting ourselves from criminals, it's about protecting ourselves from...tyranny? Seriously? At least one legal scholar has seriously argued that it was originally about collective protection against tyranny rather than individual protection against criminals.
	__________________ Just reread theprestige's signature; still cannot recall anything about it. Last edited by d4m10n; 25th February 2022 at 04:51 PM.

25th February 2022, 03:38 PM	#84
Stacyhs Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2016 Location: United States Posts: 30,320	Originally Posted by d4m10n Granted. This leaves open the question of whether non-foreign tyranny should be on the list of internal threats or not. Of course it does. When, and if, tyranny actually occurs. Screaming that being told to wear a mask during a killer pandemic does not. Nor does saying large companies' employees must get vaccinated or show proof of a medical reason not to during a pandemic that has killed almost 1 MILLION Americans. Nor was Obama resorting to XO's when the GOP controlled Congress obstructed everything he tried to do. Nor was an amnesty plan for Dreamers. All of which Republicans put forth as examples 'tyranny'.

25th February 2022, 04:50 PM	#87
Stacyhs Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2016 Location: United States Posts: 30,320	Originally Posted by d4m10n The question I'm trying to get to at the moment is whether "The concept of resistance to tyranny has always been part of the 2A landscape," as Warp12 said at #12. I think that's true. But what the 2A really related to was having a 'well-organized militia' to deal with that. I think it does not mean that every Tom, Dick, and Harriet has the right to own assault style weapons. But I'm not going to get into that argument.

25th February 2022, 05:57 PM	#88
Lurch Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2016 Location: Ottawa Posts: 2,411	If we could resurrect the Founders, one must wonder: What would they make of today's gun-strokers shrieking about the 2A, the proliferation of guns, the 30,000+ deaths by gunfire annually (a million in a generation), and the phenomenon of mass shootings. I imagine they would recoil at the insanity. I posit that the American mind has been rendered mad through a convenient misinterpretation of one poorly worded sentence.

25th February 2022, 06:23 PM	#89
Stacyhs Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2016 Location: United States Posts: 30,320	Originally Posted by Lurch If we could resurrect the Founders, one must wonder: What would they make of today's gun-strokers shrieking about the 2A, the proliferation of guns, the 30,000+ deaths by gunfire annually (a million in a generation), and the phenomenon of mass shootings. I imagine they would recoil at the insanity. I posit that the American mind has been rendered mad through a convenient misinterpretation of one poorly worded sentence.

25th February 2022, 07:47 PM	#90
ZiprHead Muse Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Sag-Nasty Posts: 927	Originally Posted by Lurch If we could resurrect the Founders, one must wonder: What would they make of today's gun-strokers shrieking about the 2A, the proliferation of guns, the 30,000+ deaths by gunfire annually (a million in a generation), and the phenomenon of mass shootings. I imagine they would recoil at the insanity. I posit that the American mind has been rendered mad through a convenient misinterpretation of one poorly worded sentence. This site really needs a like or rep system.
	__________________ When conservatives realize they cannot win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. They will abandon democracy. IIDB is back, baby!

25th February 2022, 09:04 PM	#91
Dr. Keith Not a doctor. Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Texas Posts: 25,592	Originally Posted by d4m10n The question I'm trying to get to at the moment is whether "The concept of resistance to tyranny has always been part of the 2A landscape," as Warp12 said at #12. At least one legal scholar has seriously argued that it was originally about collective protection against tyranny rather than individual protection against criminals. I would seriously question the scholarship of anyone who says it is about personal safety or personal protection from criminals. There is no historical basis for that view. It is entirely modern. If you read the text without an nra propaganda it is talking about the people having a responsibility to maintain the security of the state. Once we decided to have a standing army we really should have dropped this, too.
	__________________ Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God. He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa If I had a pet panda I would name it Snowflake. Last edited by Dr. Keith; 25th February 2022 at 09:15 PM.

26th February 2022, 12:00 AM	#92
Stacyhs Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2016 Location: United States Posts: 30,320	Originally Posted by Dr. Keith I would seriously question the scholarship of anyone who says it is about personal safety or personal protection from criminals. There is no historical basis for that view. It is entirely modern. If you read the text without an nra propaganda it is talking about the people having a responsibility to maintain the security of the state. Once we decided to have a standing army we really should have dropped this, too.

26th February 2022, 12:16 AM	#93
gnome Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 13,764	Originally Posted by Trebuchet Native Americans, Oh yep when you're colonizing inhabited lands, it's handy to be armed just in case they object for some reason.
	__________________

26th February 2022, 09:08 AM	#95
Regnad Kcin Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: The old Same place Posts: 10,842	Originally Posted by Dr. Keith I would seriously question the scholarship of anyone who says it is about personal safety or personal protection from criminals. There is no historical basis for that view. It is entirely modern. If you read the text without an nra propaganda it is talking about the people having a responsibility to maintain the security of the state. Once we decided to have a standing army we really should have dropped this, too. Succinct and accurate. Well done.
	__________________ My heros are Alex Zanardi and Evelyn Glennie.

26th February 2022, 01:50 PM	#96
d4m10n Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Mounts Farm Posts: 10,960	Originally Posted by Dr. Keith I would seriously question the scholarship of anyone who says it is about personal safety or personal protection from criminals. There is no historical basis for that view. It is entirely modern. That's basically what the article I linked says, among other things. Originally Posted by Dr. Keith If you read the text without an nra propaganda it is talking about the people having a responsibility to maintain the security of the state. How is this different from Ms. Taylor's interpretation? https://twitter.com/KandissTaylor/st...62597258199041
	__________________ Just reread theprestige's signature; still cannot recall anything about it. Last edited by d4m10n; 26th February 2022 at 01:56 PM.

26th February 2022, 03:10 PM	#97
Stacyhs Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2016 Location: United States Posts: 30,320	Originally Posted by d4m10n That's basically what the article I linked says, among other things. How is this different from Ms. Taylor's interpretation? https://twitter.com/KandissTaylor/st...62597258199041 I think the difference comes in what one considers 'tyranny'. I highly suspect she considers mask mandates 'tyranny'.
	Last edited by Stacyhs; 26th February 2022 at 03:12 PM.

26th February 2022, 10:33 PM	#98
Dr. Keith Not a doctor. Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Texas Posts: 25,592	Originally Posted by d4m10n That's basically what the article I linked says, among other things. How is this different from Ms. Taylor's interpretation? https://twitter.com/KandissTaylor/st...62597258199041 We have a standing army. Something the founders never imagined. The army makes the militia of the 2A redundant. Unnecessary. Frivolous. I’m assuming she disagrees, which is why you edited my post. Eta: she talks about protecting “ourselves” while the 2A talks about protecting “the State”. You do see the difference, right?
	__________________ Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God. He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa If I had a pet panda I would name it Snowflake. Last edited by Dr. Keith; 26th February 2022 at 10:37 PM.

27th February 2022, 12:10 AM	#99
Stacyhs Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2016 Location: United States Posts: 30,320	It's gotten to the point where a lot of these right-wingers think anything they disagree with is "tyranny"...especially if it comes from the left.

27th February 2022, 01:34 AM	#100
gnome Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 13,764	I think some people have no better understanding than to think of it as a game. They think calling something by the right term automatically qualifies it for universal opposition. They think it's the label, not the tyranny itself, that makes a tyrant hated.
	__________________

27th February 2022, 07:26 AM	#101
d4m10n Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Mounts Farm Posts: 10,960	Originally Posted by Dr. Keith The army makes the militia of the 2A redundant. Unnecessary. Frivolous. My brother-in-law was sent to Iraq back when the 45th infantry was deployed there. Does it make sense to say that reservists like him were part of a standing army rather than a well-regulated citizen militia? Originally Posted by Dr. Keith ...she talks about protecting “ourselves” while the 2A talks about protecting “the State”. The "free state" isn't made of infrastructure and documents, it is made of citizens.
	__________________ Just reread theprestige's signature; still cannot recall anything about it. Last edited by d4m10n; 27th February 2022 at 07:28 AM.

27th February 2022, 07:31 AM	#102
d4m10n Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Mounts Farm Posts: 10,960	DUPLICATE POST
	__________________ Just reread theprestige's signature; still cannot recall anything about it. Last edited by d4m10n; 27th February 2022 at 07:36 AM.

27th February 2022, 03:31 PM	#103
Stacyhs Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2016 Location: United States Posts: 30,320	Originally Posted by d4m10n My brother-in-law was sent to Iraq back when the 45th infantry was deployed there. Does it make sense to say that reservists like him were part of a standing army rather than a well-regulated citizen militia? Reservists are part of a well-regulated militia not a 'standing army' unless activated. The "free state" isn't made of infrastructure and documents, it is made of citizens.[/quote] That sounds almost impressive but really isn't.

27th February 2022, 10:08 PM	#104
Dr. Keith Not a doctor. Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Texas Posts: 25,592	Originally Posted by d4m10n My brother-in-law was sent to Iraq back when the 45th infantry was deployed there. Does it make sense to say that reservists like him were part of a standing army rather than a well-regulated citizen militia? Reservist = militia. No problem. Quote: The "free state" isn't made of infrastructure and documents, it is made of citizens. Ukrainian are fighting for their state. Retired cops shooting people in theaters are protecting themselves.
	__________________ Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God. He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa If I had a pet panda I would name it Snowflake.

28th February 2022, 05:59 AM	#105
d4m10n Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Mounts Farm Posts: 10,960	Originally Posted by Dr. Keith Ukrainian are fighting for their state. I don't think it's particularly difficult to find examples of the citizen militia protecting state functions much closer to home. https://twitter.com/nbcwashington/st...85456578240513
	__________________ Just reread theprestige's signature; still cannot recall anything about it.

28th February 2022, 12:13 PM	#106
Stacyhs Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2016 Location: United States Posts: 30,320	Originally Posted by d4m10n I don't think it's particularly difficult to find examples of the citizen militia protecting state functions much closer to home. https://twitter.com/nbcwashington/st...85456578240513 The National Guard is a 'well organized militia' under the command of the State. I can't think of a single private 'citizen' group that calls itself a 'militia' that isn't a right-wing bunch of white supremacist nationalists and/or antigovernment extremists like the Oath Keepers and the 3 Percenters.

28th February 2022, 04:26 PM	#107
Dr. Keith Not a doctor. Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Texas Posts: 25,592	Originally Posted by d4m10n I don't think it's particularly difficult to find examples of the citizen militia protecting state functions much closer to home. https://twitter.com/nbcwashington/st...85456578240513 Your point?
	__________________ Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God. He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa If I had a pet panda I would name it Snowflake.

4th June 2022, 04:58 AM	#110
Fast Eddie B Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Lenoir City, TN/Mineral Bluff, GA Posts: 7,559	Originally Posted by Lurch If we could resurrect the Founders, one must wonder: What would they make of today's gun-strokers shrieking about the 2A, the proliferation of guns, the 30,000+ deaths by gunfire annually (a million in a generation), and the phenomenon of mass shootings. I imagine they would recoil at the insanity. I posit that the American mind has been rendered mad through a convenient misinterpretation of one poorly worded sentence. I think they might say, “It’s a good thing we included a straightforward provision to repeal or modify any Amendment, or add new Amendments, in order to keep up with changing societal norms.” The problem right now is that “the people”, through their representatives, don’t support repealing or modifying the Second Amendment in sufficient numbers to make it happen. A single word change from “the right of the people…” to “the right of the militia…” would do it. I just don’t see it happening any time soon.

4th June 2022, 05:48 AM	#111
a_unique_person Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Waiting for the pod bay door to open. Posts: 45,256	Originally Posted by newyorkguy Folks, it only gets worse. Guns because we have the right to protect ourselves from tyranny. It's no longer about protecting ourselves from criminals, it's about protecting ourselves from...tyranny? Seriously? H-E-L-P !!! Jesus! Guns and Babies?
	__________________ *Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.* Everything is possible, but not everything is probable. “Perception is real, but the truth is not.” - Imelda Marcos

4th June 2022, 07:33 AM	#112
BobTheCoward Banned Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 22,789	Originally Posted by Dr. Keith I would seriously question the scholarship of anyone who says it is about personal safety or personal protection from criminals. There is no historical basis for that view. It is entirely modern. If you read the text without an nra propaganda it is talking about the people having a responsibility to maintain the security of the state. Once we decided to have a standing army we really should have dropped this, too. Yea. It would have been nice if they included a statement that a change to the need of the first clause would modify the actual rule in the second clause.
BobTheCoward Banned Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 22,789

4th June 2022, 09:53 AM	#113
The Don Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Sir Fynwy Posts: 36,615	Originally Posted by BobTheCoward Yea. It would have been nice if they included a statement that a change to the need of the first clause would modify the actual rule in the second clause. Maybe they thought it was so obvious that they didn't need to.

4th June 2022, 10:36 AM	#114
BobTheCoward Banned Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 22,789	Originally Posted by The Don Maybe they thought it was so obvious that they didn't need to. Why would that be obvious? The reason for the rule does not modify the rule. "high scoring, being necessary for the game, the 3 point line is 23 foot, 9 inches." No matter how detrimental the line is to high scoring....it remains 23 foot 9 inches
BobTheCoward Banned Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 22,789

4th June 2022, 11:13 AM	#115
d4m10n Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Mounts Farm Posts: 10,960	Originally Posted by The Don Maybe they thought it was so obvious that they didn't need to. Indeed. The authors of the amendment would've been aware of verba cum effectu accipienda sunt as a canon of constitutional construction.
	__________________ Just reread theprestige's signature; still cannot recall anything about it. Last edited by d4m10n; 4th June 2022 at 11:29 AM.

4th June 2022, 11:22 AM	#116
Stacyhs Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2016 Location: United States Posts: 30,320	What would the Founders say? Probably: "We really had too much faith in "the people" having some common sense."

4th June 2022, 11:27 AM	#117
BobTheCoward Banned Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 22,789	Originally Posted by d4m10n Indeed. The authors of the amendment would've been aware of verba cum effectu sunt accipienda as a canon of constitutional construction. There is no given reason to apply that to the constitution.It isn't given intent of the author's doesn't matter.
BobTheCoward Banned Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 22,789

4th June 2022, 02:31 PM	#118
d4m10n Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Mounts Farm Posts: 10,960	Originally Posted by BobTheCoward There is no given reason to apply that to the constitution. We're simply going to have to disagree on whether the traditional canons of constitutional construction should be applied when interpreting the constitution.
	__________________ Just reread theprestige's signature; still cannot recall anything about it. Last edited by d4m10n; 4th June 2022 at 02:33 PM.