Right to Bear Arms

[Walker]

Right to Bear Arms
The 2nd Amendment to the USA Constitution does not say:
'The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.'
It is quite plainly qualified:
"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State."
A rational person might assume this means the arms being for Militia use and regulated by them.

"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".

So?

The people are keeping the arms, just like it says. Their right to do that shall not be infringed.

Should it be necessary to use those arms in defense of the security of the free state, from tyranny by the government, then the arms are ready for the militia of government resistance to protect the God-given rights of mankind, from tyranny.

The language is pretty clear, despite attempts to muddle.

[Walker]

You know what happens to people who abuse the 'quote' function.

That sheds some light on the cryptic threat I received, PM, promising me I would be banned for abusing the 'quote' function.

It made no sense to me, so I likely have made the error before.

Could be the reason why postings disappear, too.

Who knows, and, who really cares.

Nobody I know, in this context.

[Walker]

You know what happens to people who abuse the 'quote' function. I didn't post that. And you are only seeing what you want to see. Remember it's called an AMENDMENT. Never mind about a triviality like the truth eh? Don't forget that I don't give a shit how many guns you morons have. I'm just pointing out the facts. BTW, it's even MORE confusing and ambiguous with the extra commas!

You must interpret the Constitution in light of the Declaration of Independence, not your sense of right and wrong, in which you celebrate the death of Americans.

Is it safe?

[Dalek Prime]

Why is that? You don't care to defend your own life. That's your right.

What gives you the right to not defend those in your care, who would otherwise be defenseless?

You could not defend them if you're a dead dummy because you wouldn't defend yourself.

There's no one in an antinatalist's care, genius. And what gives anyone the 'right' to create anything that can be shot, does the shooting, or has to witness the event? By doing so, you've already set the possibility of harm in motion.

Birth; the sine qua non of all harm, whether you cause it or receive it.

Picky picky.

I'll amend the statement.

Because it's only all about you, such a fate that results from not defending yourself will not be forced onto another in your care, because you care for no one and therefore, no one is your care.

Happy?

I care too much for people to create that which can and will suffer. That's not being picky. That's what antinatalism is.

Yes, much better, thanks.

[Walker]

There's no one in an antinatalist's care, genius. And what gives anyone the 'right' to create anything that can be shot, does the shooting, or has to witness the event? By doing so, you've already set the possibility of harm in motion.

Birth; the sine qua non of all harm, whether you cause it or receive it.

Picky picky.

I'll amend the statement.

Because it's only all about you, such a fate that results from not defending yourself will not be forced onto another in your care, because you care for no one and therefore, no one is your care.

Happy?

I care too much for people to create that which can and will suffer. That's not being picky. That's what antinatalism is.

Yes, much better, thanks.

Good. Cause for celebration.

People are so beautiful, aren’t they.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hb-ez1uziy8

[Dalek Prime]

Picky picky.

I'll amend the statement.

Because it's only all about you, such a fate that results from not defending yourself will not be forced onto another in your care, because you care for no one and therefore, no one is your care.

Happy?

I care too much for people to create that which can and will suffer. That's not being picky. That's what antinatalism is.

Yes, much better, thanks.

Good. Cause for celebration.

People are so beautiful, aren’t they.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hb-ez1uziy8

People suck cock. Literally. :/

[vegetariantaxidermy]

You know what happens to people who abuse the 'quote' function. I didn't post that. And you are only seeing what you want to see. Remember it's called an AMENDMENT. Never mind about a triviality like the truth eh? Don't forget that I don't give a shit how many guns you morons have. I'm just pointing out the facts. BTW, it's even MORE confusing and ambiguous with the extra commas!

You must interpret the Constitution in light of the Declaration of Independence, not your sense of right and wrong, in which you celebrate the death of Americans.

Is it safe?

I don't celebrate any death, but y'all are so annoying with your stupid gun obsession and crass ways. I'm the one who's anti death penalty. I would be willing to be that you are in love with it. So who celebrates the death of Americans then? I suppose I should be kinder to you. You are obviously quite insane.

[Londoner]

Should it be necessary to use those arms in defense of the security of the free state, from tyranny by the government, then the arms are ready for the militia of government resistance to protect the God-given rights of mankind, from tyranny.

A 'militia of government resistance' is a contradiction in terms. A militia is a force raised by the government.

But I am curious as to what you understand by 'tyranny'. You write of 'God-given rights of mankind', so would it be possible for a democratic government to be a tyranny if it infringed your 'God-given rights'?

Or would a tyranny just be an absence of democracy?

Because the two are not compatible. If I believe I have 'God-given rights' then I do not have to accept the will of the majority. But if I can use guns to protect my right, against the will of the majority - and I am successful - then wouldn't I be the tyrant?

Alternatively, if democracy determines what are rights, then rights are not 'God-given'.

[Walker]

...

You may find this interesting.

"The words "well regulated" had a far different meaning at the time the Second Amendment was drafted. In the context of the Constitution's provisions for Congressional power over certain aspects of the militia, and in the context of the Framers' definition of "militia," government regulation was not the intended meaning. Rather, the term meant only what it says, that the necessary militia be well regulated, but not by the national government."

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm

[Walker]

People suck cock. Literally. :/

I'm a people.

Never did, never will.

[Walker]

But I am curious as to what you understand by 'tyranny'.

Definitions 1, 2, 3, and 4 all work just fine.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tyranny

I truncated the quote, not to abuse, but to specify the response.

[Walker]

Or would a tyranny just be an absence of democracy?

Cripes, on first glance that looked like tranny.

Must be age.

[Dalek Prime]

Or would a tyranny just be an absence of democracy?

Cripes, on first glance that looked like tranny.

Must be age.

Trannies can exist within a democracy.

[Londoner]

But I am curious as to what you understand by 'tyranny'.

Definitions 1, 2, 3, and 4 all work just fine.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tyranny

I truncated the quote, not to abuse, but to specify the response.

Surely, like all dictionary questions they just record usage, so they beg the question. For example 'oppressive power'; what you find oppressive and I find oppressive may be two different things. Likewise a 'rigorous' condition.

If you feel disinclined to distinguish between democratic authority and 'God given rights', let me put it another way: Suppose somebody decides to kill the US President. Since the President has been elected, is that necessarily bad? Or, if the person considers the President has interfered with some right they consider as 'God given', might it be a legitimate action?

[Walker]

But I am curious as to what you understand by 'tyranny'.

Definitions 1, 2, 3, and 4 all work just fine.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tyranny

I truncated the quote, not to abuse, but to specify the response.

Surely, like all dictionary questions they just record usage, so they beg the question. For example 'oppressive power'; what you find oppressive and I find oppressive may be two different things. Likewise a 'rigorous' condition.

If you feel disinclined to distinguish between democratic authority and 'God given rights', let me put it another way: Suppose somebody decides to kill the US President. Since the President has been elected, is that necessarily bad? Or, if the person considers the President has interfered with some right they consider as 'God given', might it be a legitimate action?

Since you feel the need to move beyond weapons, you have realized doorways for further inquiry. It is a fascinating consideration, considering the energy of creativity that the document has unleashed by tapping into infinite potentiality, and advancing the human condition beyond that of the indigenous, aboriginal cannibalism that Christopher Columbus sailed into.
http://hartzog.org/j/cannibals.html



Although I have no need to answer repeated quizzes when the answers are there in the public domain to discover, I do encourage understanding of the document through research and contemplation, a document of words that has, more than any other, improved the conditions of humanity by alleviating much suffering in the world where possible, such as helping to rebuild the world after the big one. Those words that transcend time and space have created the world, you might say.