Welcome!

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

SignUp Now!

Nutty 9th rules "bear arms" doesn't include in public

GarnetPild

Overlord
Founder
Joined
Dec 2, 2020
Messages
3,860
“The power of the government to regulate carrying arms in the public square does not infringe in any way on the right of an individual to defend his home or business.”

Wow. The 2nd ammendment isn't about protecting your home or business. Straw man arguments from our federal appeals courts now, I guess. Our founding fathers are rolling over in their graves at what this country has become.
 

America 1st

The best poster on the board! Trumps lover! 🇺🇸
Founder
Patron
Joined
Jan 7, 2021
Messages
16,098
“The power of the government to regulate carrying arms in the public square does not infringe in any way on the right of an individual to defend his home or business.”

Wow. The 2nd ammendment isn't about protecting your home or business. Straw man arguments from our federal appeals courts now, I guess. Our founding fathers are rolling over in their graves at what this country has become.
Wait until the courts rule that as long as a state has a national guard unit or state guard then the 2A is fulfilled.

Nothing in 2A says anything about private citizens keeping or bearing arms unfortunately.

"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."
 

GarnetPild

Overlord
Founder
Joined
Dec 2, 2020
Messages
3,860
Wait until the courts rule that as long as a state has a national guard unit or state guard then the 2A is fulfilled.

Nothing in 2A says anything about private citizens keeping or bearing arms unfortunately.
Yeah, they could, and would, interpret "the Right of the people to bear arms" to mean the collective people, not individual citizens. Even though it is insanely clear from their writings what the founders meant.😡
 

America 1st

The best poster on the board! Trumps lover! 🇺🇸
Founder
Patron
Joined
Jan 7, 2021
Messages
16,098
Yeah, they could, and would, interpret "the Right of the people to bear arms" to mean the collective people, not individual citizens. Even though it is insanely clear from their writings what the founders meant.😡
Yup.

They would say it's the right of the militia to keep and bear arms to keep the state free from insurrectionists.
 

SOTrojan

Leader
Joined
Feb 1, 2021
Messages
68
Wait until the courts rule that as long as a state has a national guard unit or state guard then the 2A is fulfilled.

Nothing in 2A says anything about private citizens keeping or bearing arms unfortunately.

"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."
“The people” aren’t private citizens? I mean, dude. FYI, the SCOTUS has expressly ruled that the 2d Amendment does in fact grant an individual private citizen a right to keep and bear arms, and the majority rejected the argument you made about a militia. If Dems get a majority, they would likely rule as you say, despite that such a ruling would be contrary to the plain language of the amendment and not supportable.
 
Last edited:

120north

Elite
Founder
Patron
Joined
Dec 9, 2020
Messages
184
A militia is nothing more than a group of private citizens. A militia, much like a corporation “is people”. Therefore, by logic, private citizens are the ones that have the right to bear arms. A nebulous militia is not a thing, the right to bear arms is delegated to the people that make up said militia. Seems pretty fucking clear to me. The 9th circus court can literally eat a bag of dicks.
 

GarnetPild

Overlord
Founder
Joined
Dec 2, 2020
Messages
3,860
This fight cannot be won politically.


gonzalesgold-Copy-1024x703.jpg
 

America 1st

The best poster on the board! Trumps lover! 🇺🇸
Founder
Patron
Joined
Jan 7, 2021
Messages
16,098
“The people” aren’t private citizens? I mean, dude. FYI, the SCOTUS has expressly ruled that the 2d Amendment does in fact grant an individual private citizen a right to keep and bear arms, and the majority rejected the argument you made about a militia. If Dems get a majority, they would likely rule as you say, despite that such a ruling would be contrary to the plain language of the amendment and not supportable.
Interpretations change.

The "plain language" doesn't say anything about private citizens tho.

Militia doesn't mean private citizens either. They are an organized part of the military.

Definition of militia
1a: a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency
The militia was called to quell the riot.
b: a body of citizens organized for military service
2: the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service

 

MVTPatriot

Elite
Founder
Joined
Dec 9, 2020
Messages
1,371
Interpretations change.

The "plain language" doesn't say anything about private citizens tho.

Militia doesn't mean private citizens either. They are an organized part of the military.

Definition of militia
1a: a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency
The militia was called to quell the riot.
b: a body of citizens organized for military service
2: the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service


Not to be a hole, but is this the same definition of the word as it was when the 2A was being drafted? We know definitions change over time, wouldn't applying their version of the word be appropriate?

Truly curious.
 

America 1st

The best poster on the board! Trumps lover! 🇺🇸
Founder
Patron
Joined
Jan 7, 2021
Messages
16,098
Not to be a hole, but is this the same definition of the word as it was when the 2A was being drafted? We know definitions change over time, wouldn't applying their version of the word be appropriate?

Truly curious.
To a sensible person and court; yes.

To these swamp creatures; 🤷‍♂️
 

GarnetPild

Overlord
Founder
Joined
Dec 2, 2020
Messages
3,860
Not to be a hole, but is this the same definition of the word as it was when the 2A was being drafted? We know definitions change over time, wouldn't applying their version of the word be appropriate?

Truly curious.


Well regulated meant something very different back then. Unfortunately today, most people think that has something to do with regulations(restrictions) on gun ownership.
 

America 1st

The best poster on the board! Trumps lover! 🇺🇸
Founder
Patron
Joined
Jan 7, 2021
Messages
16,098
Well regulated meant something very different back then. Unfortunately today, most people think that has something to do with regulations(restrictions) on gun ownership.
Yup and it's a 'living document' so no need to even bother with what they meant; only the now matters (in some people's minds).
 

Viking

Overlord
Founder
Joined
Dec 1, 2020
Messages
3,104
Fucking word games! You lawyers in here know exactly what I am talking about. We need proper syntax grammar and fuck all these silly word games! SKOL!
 

SOTrojan

Leader
Joined
Feb 1, 2021
Messages
68
Interpretations change.

The "plain language" doesn't say anything about private citizens tho.

Militia doesn't mean private citizens either. They are an organized part of the military.

Definition of militia
1a: a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency
The militia was called to quell the riot.
b: a body of citizens organized for military service
2: the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service

What are you talking about? It says ”the right of THE PEOPLE . . . “ The people ARE private citizens. Therefore, it says quite a lot about private citizens. Namely, that their right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
 

Monthly Donation Goal

  1. Campaign goal
    $47.17 of $500.00
Top Bottom