Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 6/20/2016 1:27:37 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/20/2016 1:30:54 PM EDT by benb]
I am currently engaged in the never-ending battle with a liberal who insists that "well-regulated" means subject to regulations. I am planning on sending this reply:

"Well regulated" does not mean subject to regulations as you are interpreting it. It means (and the courts have agreed) well-equipped as in what the "regular" army would use. The way people use words change in 200 years.
View Quote


However, I am not 100% certain the courts have made a decision regarding this verbiage. I am trying to avoid giving him any opportunity to refute what I say. Can anybody tell me if there was in fact a court decision for this and what it said?
Link Posted: 6/20/2016 1:28:31 PM EDT
Originally Posted By benb:
I am currently engaged in the never-ending battle with a liberal
View Quote


I think I found your problem.
Link Posted: 6/20/2016 1:30:17 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Squatch:


I think I found your problem.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Squatch:
Originally Posted By benb:
I am currently engaged in the never-ending battle with a liberal


I think I found your problem.


Haha, You would think I would learn right?
Link Posted: 6/20/2016 1:30:34 PM EDT
I don't understand how or why its an issue

"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."

Who cares about the militia. Says it plain and fucking simple the right of the people
Link Posted: 6/20/2016 1:30:45 PM EDT
I thought regulated meant disciplined and trained, proficient with arms, etc. Whatever it was the founders thought it was necessary for the security of a free state.
Link Posted: 6/20/2016 1:30:50 PM EDT
American civilians were meant to be "well regulated," as in, made "regular," and able to go toe-to-toe (though perhaps through unconventional warfare) with the regular units of the day.

In our case, we should be able to own, unhindered, the weapons made available to every infantry squad (even AA and mortars, and especially AT.)

That's my extreme opinion.
Link Posted: 6/20/2016 1:31:13 PM EDT
FPNI.

Even if "Regulated = Trained" were written into some court decision, equal sign and all, they'll only change from "regulated means to regulate" to "the definition of regulated needs to be changed".

Either way, no matter what evidence you use to prove them wrong, you'll still be in a 2A fight with a fucking retard.
Link Posted: 6/20/2016 1:32:54 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Cucumbermonkey:
I thought regulated meant disciplined and trained, proficient with arms, etc. Whatever it was the founders thought it was necessary for the security of a free state.
View Quote


It does mean that, but if I could throw a court ruling supporting that then I think that would be the nail in the coffin for him. At the at point all he could do is resort to name calling (racist, right-wing extremist, etc)
Link Posted: 6/20/2016 1:33:06 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/20/2016 1:33:43 PM EDT by hosphemer]
Unfortunately arguing this is pointless, because he knows what "Shall not be infringed" means. He's dishonest and doesn't want to admit he just does not want you to have guns, period. He doesn't care what the Constitution says or means, in any shape or form.
Link Posted: 6/20/2016 1:33:48 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/20/2016 1:34:34 PM EDT by dorobuta]
Try:

A well educated electorate, being critical to a functioning government, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed.

does this mean only the electorate can have books?

or, does it mean that one of the benefits to the people having books is a well educated electorate?
Link Posted: 6/20/2016 1:34:40 PM EDT
The term "regulars" was a name for troops proficient and able for battle.

The term "well regulated" simply means that the militias were to be trained.
Link Posted: 6/20/2016 1:34:44 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By hosphemer:
Unfortunately arguing this is pointless, because he knows what "Shall not be infringed" means. He's dishonest and doesn't want to admit he just does not want you to have guns, period. He doesn't care what the Constitution says or means, in any shape or form.
View Quote


He has already admitted that he does not want civilians to own "weapons of war". Yes he used that phrase. I think he gets his facts from CNN.
Link Posted: 6/20/2016 1:37:53 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/20/2016 1:40:55 PM EDT by georgiagun]
Show them the Penn and Teller skit about the comma and the second amendment.

Militia is wholey separate part and has zero to do with the the people's right to bear arms.

Kind of like freedom of religion and freedom of the press. You don't have freedom from the religious press.

Punctuation matters.


This one:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Hx23c84obwQ
Link Posted: 6/20/2016 1:38:54 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By dorobuta:
Try:

A well educated electorate, being critical to a functioning government, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed.

does this mean only the electorate can have books?

or, does it mean that one of the benefits to the people having books is a well educated electorate?
View Quote



You can only have books if you've got a bachelors degree. "Well educated" means "more than college" (since they're attempting to make college free to everyone). Only people who continue past the free post-secondary would be allowed to have books at home. And only if they keep them in a locked safe, with at least 1 chapter removed to keep the book from being fully functional. You'd only be able to put the last chapter back in when you go to a library.
Link Posted: 6/20/2016 1:39:20 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By benb:


He has already admitted that he does not want civilians to own "weapons of war". Yes he used that phrase. I think he gets his facts from CNN.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By benb:
Originally Posted By hosphemer:
Unfortunately arguing this is pointless, because he knows what "Shall not be infringed" means. He's dishonest and doesn't want to admit he just does not want you to have guns, period. He doesn't care what the Constitution says or means, in any shape or form.


He has already admitted that he does not want civilians to own "weapons of war". Yes he used that phrase. I think he gets his facts from CNN.


weapons of war are the exact ones the 2nd is meant to protect.

the 2nd has also been incorporated to the states via the McDonald USSC decision as an individual right
Link Posted: 6/20/2016 1:40:29 PM EDT
Originally Posted By benb:
I am currently engaged in the never-ending battle with a liberal who insists that "well-regulated" means subject to regulations. I am planning on sending this reply:

"Well regulated" does not mean subject to regulations as you are interpreting it. It means (and the courts have agreed) well-equipped as in what the "regular" army would use. The way people use words change in 200 years.
View Quote


However, I am not 100% certain the courts have made a decision regarding this verbiage. I am trying to avoid giving him any opportunity to refute what I say. Can anybody tell me if there was in fact a court decision for this and what it said?
View Quote



"A militia full of rules, laws, and regulations being necessary to the security of a free state"

"A militia that are skilled enough to shoot a motherfucker in the face at a hundred yards, being necessary to the security of a free state"

Which one makes more sense?
Link Posted: 6/20/2016 1:40:29 PM EDT
Can't fix stupid.
Link Posted: 6/20/2016 1:41:20 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By benb:


He has already admitted that he does not want civilians to own "weapons of war". Yes he used that phrase. I think he gets his facts from CNN.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By benb:
Originally Posted By hosphemer:
Unfortunately arguing this is pointless, because he knows what "Shall not be infringed" means. He's dishonest and doesn't want to admit he just does not want you to have guns, period. He doesn't care what the Constitution says or means, in any shape or form.


He has already admitted that he does not want civilians to own "weapons of war". Yes he used that phrase. I think he gets his facts from CNN.


The 2nd could say "Everyone can own whatever weapon they want, and anyone who says otherwise can eat a bunch of dicks," and they'd still argue about it.

They're lying because they're not yet at the point where they feel like they can admit their true intentions.
Link Posted: 6/20/2016 1:42:54 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/20/2016 1:46:26 PM EDT by SamuelAdams1776]
A printing press must be kept "well-regulated" or the ink smears, paper tears, etc.
A Swiss watch must be kept "well-regulated" or it will not tell the correct time.
The queens shotgun must be kept "well-regulated" so it won't blow up in her face.

That phrase has never meant outlawed by the government.
Link Posted: 6/20/2016 1:44:22 PM EDT
Bill Whittle's Firewall:

Your Second Amendment is the vid you seek for this EXACT argument.
Link Posted: 6/20/2016 1:47:21 PM EDT
ask the liberal who makes the state free the government or the people
Link Posted: 6/20/2016 1:48:26 PM EDT
Link Posted: 6/20/2016 1:49:21 PM EDT
Link Posted: 6/20/2016 1:51:12 PM EDT
Link Posted: 6/20/2016 1:52:29 PM EDT
Link Posted: 6/20/2016 1:54:54 PM EDT

1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."


1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."


1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."


1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."


1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.
Link Posted: 6/20/2016 1:55:29 PM EDT
A well rounded breakfast, being the most important meal of the day, the right of the people right to purchase and eat food, shall not be infringed.
Link Posted: 6/20/2016 1:56:04 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/20/2016 1:57:45 PM EDT by Spartikis]
It just means trained, organized, accurate, etc... not governed, controlled, or restricted like liberals want to think.

With that said you will never win. To be anti-gun you have to ignore facts and make a decision based solely on emotion. You will never win an argument with an emotional person, if 1000 people listen to your argument and say yes you are the correct one, your liberal friend will still think they won the argument.
Link Posted: 6/20/2016 1:56:08 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By benb:


It does mean that, but if I could throw a court ruling supporting that then I think that would be the nail in the coffin for him. At the at point all he could do is resort to name calling (racist, right-wing extremist, etc)
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By benb:
Originally Posted By Cucumbermonkey:
I thought regulated meant disciplined and trained, proficient with arms, etc. Whatever it was the founders thought it was necessary for the security of a free state.


It does mean that, but if I could throw a court ruling supporting that then I think that would be the nail in the coffin for him. At the at point all he could do is resort to name calling (racist, right-wing extremist, etc)



Here you go, straight from DC v Heller. That ought to shut him up.


http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
Opinion of the Court

Finally, the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training. See Johnson 1619 (“Regulate”: “To adjust by rule or method”); Rawle 121–122; cf. Va. Declaration of Rights §13 (1776), in 7 Thorpe 3812, 3814 (referring to “a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms”)
Link Posted: 6/20/2016 1:57:07 PM EDT
How effective would the militia be if everyone showed up for muster with ban CA ban compliant rifles?
Link Posted: 6/20/2016 1:59:07 PM EDT
The term "well regulated" is meant to be understood as "well functioning". An accurate clock could be said to be well regulated.

At the risk of becoming a poop thread, when grandma talks about being "regular", she's not talking about the laws governing her elimination of waste from her system, but the fact that the system is working well.
Link Posted: 6/20/2016 2:00:41 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By mcantu:


weapons of war are the exact ones the 2nd is meant to protect.

the 2nd has also been incorporated to the states via the McDonald USSC decision as an individual right
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By mcantu:
Originally Posted By benb:
Originally Posted By hosphemer:
Unfortunately arguing this is pointless, because he knows what "Shall not be infringed" means. He's dishonest and doesn't want to admit he just does not want you to have guns, period. He doesn't care what the Constitution says or means, in any shape or form.


He has already admitted that he does not want civilians to own "weapons of war". Yes he used that phrase. I think he gets his facts from CNN.


weapons of war are the exact ones the 2nd is meant to protect.

the 2nd has also been incorporated to the states via the McDonald USSC decision as an individual right

a) Most states have an individual right stated and affirmed in their own constitutions, and on reading that, the US congress admitted them into the union:

"The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men." -- Article 1, section 24 of the Washington State constitution

It's newer than the federal bill of rights by just 102 years, and it's still in the same un-amended form that it was in when drafted in 1889. It was then read and approved by the congress of the United States.

Know what it doesn't say? It doesn't say "..., but only some arms, for some people, in some places, for a few select activities defined by, and at the convenience of, the government".

There are also 43 more state constitutions out there, in addition to the federal BoR, that have all been affirming our individual right for a whole LOT longer than the 8 years since the Heller decision that people like Hillary, et al are trying to convince others of.

b) What is the impetus for the second amendment? To prepare a nation to fight (and win battles) in armed combat against an enemy.

How do you do that? By writing rules that makes training more difficult for everybody? Or do you foster an environment that facilitates training relevant to the task of the second amendment?

Link Posted: 6/20/2016 2:04:40 PM EDT
You are falling for a trap.

The argument shouldn't be about the definition of what a "well regulated militia" is. You should be countering on how the inclusion of the comments on a well regulated militia is just a prefatory phrase, it is an example of a method in which the right to bear arms may be used in defense of the people and the government/country. It is not a declaration that the 2nd amendment only applies to a militia.

Hence the use of punctuation separating it and the use of "the people" as used in other amendments.

The definition of "the people" does not change between amendments, as much as the anti-gunners would like it to.
Link Posted: 6/20/2016 2:08:54 PM EDT
The Bill of Rights is a list of restrictions on the government. Not a list of government powers.

Only tyrants would try to twist it that way.
Link Posted: 6/20/2016 2:13:00 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By benb:


It does mean that, but if I could throw a court ruling supporting that then I think that would be the nail in the coffin for him. At the at point all he could do is resort to name calling (racist, right-wing extremist, etc)
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By benb:
Originally Posted By Cucumbermonkey:
I thought regulated meant disciplined and trained, proficient with arms, etc. Whatever it was the founders thought it was necessary for the security of a free state.


It does mean that, but if I could throw a court ruling supporting that then I think that would be the nail in the coffin for him. At the at point all he could do is resort to name calling (racist, right-wing extremist, etc)



No, No it won't. He will assuredly tell you you're wrong and continue to believe what he believes. That is the liberal way and no amount of logic, fact, or truth can sway beliefs.
Link Posted: 6/20/2016 2:25:14 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/20/2016 2:25:53 PM EDT by POLYTHENEPAM]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By MarkNH:
The law according to Heller vs. DC:

The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The
former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased,
“Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”

"It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service - M16 rifles and the like - may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause."
View Quote


FIFY
After Heller self-defense, not maintaning the militia, is the " ...central component*..." of the right. Heller slip opinion p 26

*italics in the original
Link Posted: 6/20/2016 2:30:23 PM EDT
Ask him why he failed grammar class.

Link Posted: 6/20/2016 2:33:33 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By SamuelAdams1776:
The Bill of Rights is a list of restrictions on the government. Not a list of government powers.

Only tyrants would try to twist it that way.
View Quote



Link Posted: 6/20/2016 2:33:39 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By chase45:
I don't understand how or why its an issue

"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."

Who cares about the militia. Says it plain and fucking simple the right of the people
View Quote


The militia is the citizenry, not some nut jobs running around in multi cam with airsoft chest rigs. The antis demonized the name for this very reason. It's not the National Guard or the militia groups you see in the news only when they do something stupid. It's the armed citizen. If you are armed and ready to defend your country/state/town, you are the militia.
Link Posted: 6/20/2016 2:33:49 PM EDT
A nice analysis of the language of the Second Amendment.

http://guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html
Link Posted: 6/20/2016 2:36:51 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By benb:


He has already admitted that he does not want civilians to own "weapons of war". Yes he used that phrase. I think he gets his facts from CNN.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By benb:
Originally Posted By hosphemer:
Unfortunately arguing this is pointless, because he knows what "Shall not be infringed" means. He's dishonest and doesn't want to admit he just does not want you to have guns, period. He doesn't care what the Constitution says or means, in any shape or form.


He has already admitted that he does not want civilians to own "weapons of war". Yes he used that phrase. I think he gets his facts from CNN.


Tell him the purpose of the 2A was to ensure civilians could have weapons of war. Muskets were the weapons of war of the day
Link Posted: 6/20/2016 2:44:22 PM EDT
In United States v. Cruikshank (1875), the Supreme Court ruled that "[t]he right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendment means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government."

It has jack shit to do with the militia. The Government had the power to raise and arm armies before the bill of rights ever passed. It doesn't grant a militia rights...you don't need an amendment to do that. It prevents the Government from infringing on individual rights. Period.
Link Posted: 6/20/2016 2:45:37 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By adrock1:


Tell him the purpose of the 2A was to ensure civilians could have weapons of war. Muskets were the weapons of war of the day
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By adrock1:
Originally Posted By benb:
Originally Posted By hosphemer:
Unfortunately arguing this is pointless, because he knows what "Shall not be infringed" means. He's dishonest and doesn't want to admit he just does not want you to have guns, period. He doesn't care what the Constitution says or means, in any shape or form.


He has already admitted that he does not want civilians to own "weapons of war". Yes he used that phrase. I think he gets his facts from CNN.


Tell him the purpose of the 2A was to ensure civilians could have weapons of war. Muskets were the weapons of war of the day



And tell him Nolo is working on getting us back to even par.
Link Posted: 6/20/2016 2:47:23 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By quick2k3:


[l]
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By quick2k3:
Originally Posted By SamuelAdams1776:
The Bill of Rights is a list of restrictions on the government. Not a list of government powers.

Only tyrants would try to twist it that way.


[l]

The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution."

Bill of Rights
Constitution for the United States of America
Link Posted: 6/20/2016 3:01:10 PM EDT
So your friend thinks all those Supreme Court decisions regarding the 2nd Amendment are wrong, and the SCOTUS needs him to step in and correct their mistakes? I've found this site to be a great resource when I'm debating people like your liberal friend. For example this section at the top of the Supreme Court Cases page on that site:

In District of Columbia Et al. v. Heller, the Supreme Court holds in part:
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
View Quote
Link Posted: 6/20/2016 3:03:11 PM EDT

The government is perfectly free to regulate the militia. It's their duty to do so, even.

They simply can't infringe on the right to keep and bear arms in the process.
Link Posted: 6/20/2016 3:08:49 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/20/2016 3:10:09 PM EDT by PR361]
OP, I see that you have plenty of ammo now, but Here is one of the best histories of Militia I have ever come across, tracing them all the way back to the Saxons.

It's a long read, but a LOT of useful information about Militia's, what the thought processes were at the time, and why the Founders did what they did.

The actual phrasing of the Second Amendment, Written by James Madison, was designed as a compromise to satisfy both the Federalists, who wanted a strong Federal Government with Federal Control of the Militias, and the Anti-Federalists, who were proponents of States and Individual Rights taking precedence over the Federal powers.

Madison's Solution to satisfy both parties was a prescient channeling of ARFcom wisdom; " Get Both!"

The Original writing was thus; “[T]he right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country.” [144]

It was edited during debate to it's current configuration, but essentially, we are meant to have: A well regulated and armed militia, trained to arms and properly outfitted, ready to respond to the Federal Government's call, AND The people have the right to their own arms, for self and common defense.

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." (Tench Coxe in ‘Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution' under the Pseudonym ‘A Pennsylvanian' in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 col. 1)

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American.... [T]he 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 ever remain, in the hands of the people." (Tench Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.)

Link Posted: 6/20/2016 3:09:44 PM EDT
I AM the militia


Link Posted: 6/20/2016 3:21:15 PM EDT
The second amendment speaks to two distinct by linked right.
A well regulated (supplied) militia, being necessary to the security of a free state
The right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Several other amendments use commas to separate distinct but linked rights.

You can also show them the many quotes from the founders, that back up the correct historical context of the amendments.

"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined..."
- George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 178

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 19, 1785

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

And that is but a small snip of them...take your pick. none ever mention hunting or a federally or state run militia being the only ones allowed arms.
Link Posted: 6/20/2016 3:24:27 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/20/2016 3:26:41 PM EDT by MolonLabeFBHO]
DThere was a thread on this earlier today.





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.

What is "well regulated" in the above sentence?
A. The militia
B. The state
C. The right
D. The people
E. Arms

What is the "right"?
A. To keep and bear arms
B. The militia
C. The security of a free state

Of whom does the right belong?
A. The people
B. The militia
C. The state

What "shall not be infringed?
A. The right
B. The militia
C. The state
Link Posted: 6/20/2016 3:27:43 PM EDT
The thing does say "militia" which implies an armed force equipped with "weapons of war" rather than a bunch of single-shot hunting rifles.

But they worry about the placement of a comma instead,

Arguing with progressives is like arguing with flat-Earthers.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top