How can the left

[canndo]

That's not true canndo, myself and a few others have complemented your tactfulness. I usually don't agree with what you say but you're the least temperamental and well spoken liberal I have come in contact with.

I stand corrected, I tend to remeber those who wind up calling me a fool and forget those who do not.

 

[canndo]

this is a ridiculous argument.

gun control and abortion shouldn't be part of the same argument because they are separate issues.

And so we can get by with disparate views of our rights by compartmentalizing. No, they are not separate issues. The only issuer here is our Constituitional rights. If there were no 2nd amendment, there would be no problem at all with outlawing all civilian firearms, especially now. I know it makes the right uncomfortable to realize that they don't have a cogent view of their own document but it is as it is.


You want the right to keep and bear? She wants the right to posession of her own body - even if it means the death of a child. No different at all from your insistance upon your right.

 

[desert dude]

Not weak at all. There is no provision in the Constitution that supports government interference in a woman's pregnancy, in either direction. There is nothing in the constitution that enables the state to remove a woman's control over her own body.

The Consitution doesn't cause murders. and your point being? Simple logic, you don't get it both ways. If you insiste on your right to bear arms and children die because of that right, then you can't very well protest that children are being killed because someone else is asserting HER rights.

Both or neither.

True. It is up to the individual states whether they want to outlaw abortion, or permit it. Read Roe V Wade. It has no constitutional basis, it is made up law, "living constitution" BS.

Children don't die because of 2A. They die because an insane person decided to murder them. It could happen to you or me tomorrow.

 

[canndo]

True. It is up to the individual states whether they want to outlaw abortion, or permit it. Read Roe V Wade. It has no constitutional basis, it is made up law, "living constitution" BS.

Children don't die because of 2A. They die because an insane person decided to murder them. It could happen to you or me tomorrow.

No, it isn't up to the states anymore than slavery is up to the states. I used to think that Roe was simply bad law and it really is a state's right but it is not the right of a state to remove the rights of the individual.


As I said, if it weren't for the 2nd, we would have outlawed guns for civilians. Children die for our freedoms all the time, the left figures one thing, the right another.


I will say it again, both or neither.

 

[cannabineer]

Thank you very much - I appreciate that although I doubt you will find much agreement from my right.

You get it from me. Even though I may disagree with you, even spiritedly, I respect your person and beliefs. cn

 

[canndo]

You get it from me. Even though I may disagree with you, even spiritedly, I respect your person and beliefs. cn

Yeah but you don't count - you are not far to my right.

 

[cannabineer]

Not weak at all. There is no provision in the Constitution that supports government interference in a woman's pregnancy, in either direction. There is nothing in the constitution that enables the state to remove a woman's control over her own body.

The Consitution doesn't cause murders. and your point being? Simple logic, you don't get it both ways. If you insiste on your right to bear arms and children die because of that right, then you can't very well protest that children are being killed because someone else is asserting HER rights.

Both or neither.

Does your logic have a place for someone like me who is pro-gun, pro-choice and unreservedly anti-violence? cn

 

[cannabineer]

Yeah but you don't count - you are not far to my right.

No need to insult me! cn

 

[nontheist]

No, it isn't up to the states anymore than slavery is up to the states. I used to think that Roe was simply bad law and it really is a state's right but it is not the right of a state to remove the rights of the individual.


As I said, if it weren't for the 2nd, we would have outlawed guns for civilians. Children die for our freedoms all the time, the left figures one thing, the right another.


I will say it again, both or neither.

True but the lefts ultimate goal only works if humanity is stable and we all know it is not. Hell you want to see how fucked up we are visit a religion or fantasy forum you will be quick to note we're not hard wired for efficiency or practicality. The truth is I don't bat an eye when I see a mad man mowing down a school full of children or see a man eat another mans face off, hell I am surprised we don't see it more often. Maybe it's the atheist in me but I find it comical that the left and right (fundamentalist) keep trying to find an excuse for humanity where none can be found.

 

[desert dude]

Does your logic have a place for someone like me who is pro-gun, pro-choice and unreservedly anti-violence? cn

Pretty good summary of my beliefs as well.

 

[FlyLikeAnEagle]

Show me where in the constitution there is a right to an abortion. I can show you where the constitution protects citizens' right to "keep and bear arms".

Weak argument from you, Canndo.

People have been murdered since man stood upright. People will continue to be murdered for as long as there are people. The US constitution hasn't caused any of these murders.

Tell me what 'well regulated militia' means to you.

 

[st0wandgrow]

Tell me what 'well regulated militia' means to you.

You haven't had much luck getting an answer on this, huh?

 

[desert dude]

Tell me what 'well regulated militia' means to you.

First, it is settled law, see the Heller case and the McDonald case, that the second amendment guarantees an individual right, so no matter your ignorance of what "well regulated militia" means, your argument is pointless. But, if you are interested in educating yourself, there are lots of good explanations of the second amendment. I am sure your feelings will change on this matter after the cloud of ignorance is lifted from your thinking.

"In no particular order, early American settlers viewed the right to arms and/or the right to bear arms and/or state militias as important for one or more of these purposes:[SUP][26][/SUP][SUP][27][/SUP][SUP][28][/SUP][SUP][29][/SUP][SUP][30][/SUP][SUP][31][/SUP][SUP][32][/SUP][SUP][33][/SUP]

• deterring tyrannical government;[SUP][34][/SUP]
• repelling invasion;
• suppressing insurrection;
• facilitating a natural right of self-defense;
• participating in law enforcement;
• enabling the people to organize a militia system.

"We can begin to deduce what well-regulated meant from Alexander Hamilton's words in Federalist Paper No. 29:

The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.
--- The Federalist Papers, No. 29.

Hamilton indicates a well-regulated militia is a state of preparedness obtained after rigorous and persistent training. Note the use of 'disciplining' which indicates discipline could be synonymous with well-trained.
​

 

[FlyLikeAnEagle]

First, it is settled law, see the Heller case and the McDonald case, that the second amendment guarantees an individual right, so no matter your ignorance of what "well regulated militia" means, your argument is pointless. But, if you are interested in educating yourself, there are lots of good explanations of the second amendment. I am sure your feelings will change on this matter after the cloud of ignorance is lifted from your thinking.

"In no particular order, early American settlers viewed the right to arms and/or the right to bear arms and/or state militias as important for one or more of these purposes:[SUP][26][/SUP][SUP][27][/SUP][SUP][28][/SUP][SUP][29][/SUP][SUP][30][/SUP][SUP][31][/SUP][SUP][32][/SUP][SUP][33][/SUP]

• deterring tyrannical government;[SUP][34][/SUP]
• repelling invasion;
• suppressing insurrection;
• facilitating a natural right of self-defense;
• participating in law enforcement;
• enabling the people to organize a militia system.

"We can begin to deduce what well-regulated meant from Alexander Hamilton's words in Federalist Paper No. 29:

The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.
--- The Federalist Papers, No. 29.

Hamilton indicates a well-regulated militia is a state of preparedness obtained after rigorous and persistent training. Note the use of 'disciplining' which indicates discipline could be synonymous with well-trained.
​

No, what does it mean to you, not some cut and paste job about what early settlers thought it meant.

Why so defensive about such a basic question?

 

[desert dude]

No, what does it mean to you, not some cut and paste job about what early settlers thought it meant.

Why so defensive about such a basic question?

Not defensive at all. "Well regulated militia" means a group of citizens who are armed with military grade weapons, and who are practiced and competent in their use. It was a prefatory clause in 2A and gives the underlying rationale as to why the congress cannot infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It means, today, what it meant when the bill of rights was ratified; the constitution is not "alive".

Since you seem interested in the subject, what does the phrase mean to you?

 

[FlyLikeAnEagle]

Not defensive at all. "Well regulated militia" means a group of citizens who are armed with military grade weapons, and who are practiced and competent in their use. It was a prefatory clause in 2A and gives the underlying rationale as to why the congress cannot infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It means, today, what it meant when the bill of rights was ratified; the constitution is not "alive".

Since you seem interested in the subject, what does the phrase mean to you?

Great, so since you believe people should be 'practiced and competent in their use', how do you propose gun owners become 'practiced and competent' and what checks and balances should there be to insure this?

 

[desert dude]

Great, so since you believe people should be 'practiced and competent in their use', how do you propose gun owners become 'practiced and competent' and what checks and balances should there be to insure this?

Like the second amendment, I leave it to individuals to become practiced and competent. Again, like the second amendment, I require no "checks and balances".

Why are you being defensive about this? Since you seem interested in the subject, what does the phrase mean to you?

 

[canndo]

Does your logic have a place for someone like me who is pro-gun, pro-choice and unreservedly anti-violence? cn

Absofuckingpositively. That is my point, If you are pro gun you had better be pro abortion. If you are anti-abortion you shure as shit should be anti-gun. And, because the Constition makes no nevermind - we can all be anti-violence together. Furthermore we can encourage our friends and neighbors not to have abortions and not to shoot children.

 

[canndo]

True but the lefts ultimate goal only works if humanity is stable and we all know it is not. Hell you want to see how fucked up we are visit a religion or fantasy forum you will be quick to note we're not hard wired for efficiency or practicality. The truth is I don't bat an eye when I see a mad man mowing down a school full of children or see a man eat another mans face off, hell I am surprised we don't see it more often. Maybe it's the atheist in me but I find it comical that the left and right (fundamentalist) keep trying to find an excuse for humanity where none can be found.

I might agree... but I don't really know what the left's "ultimate goal" is.

 

[canndo]

Tell me what 'well regulated militia' means to you.

This is what is so constantly bewildering to me. WHY did the founders frame it this way? They explained no other amendments. And there are no group righths laid out in any other portion of the documents - by group I mean select portions of citizenry. So it IS a rather special amendment but I can't figure out what they meant.


The church and state separation is easy (contrary to what the right has to say about it) but this one is hard, I long ago decided to knowingly ignore tht pesky militia part but notice I said knowingly. Many gun toters make presumptions.