Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

The Oath-Keepers: 10 Orders We Won't Obey!


regeneratia

Recommended Posts

Sophistry is a common tactic when one cannot win the argument on its merits. It gets so bad sometimes, like Ninjadude, that they must ignore and corrupt the language to delude themselves into thinking they are right.

"Sophistry"?!! Have you actually read the 2nd amendment? It does NOT say all americans can have whatever guns they want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 152
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Babe Ruth

    21

  • ninjadude

    19

  • regeneratia

    19

  • preacherman76

    15

Dude

Yessir, I have read it, and English is NOT my second language, it is my first.

I did not say that all americans can have any whatever guns they want.

Why do you mention that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When the 2nd amendment was written Militia men lived at HOME... that is why it says what it says.

* i should add, the amendment says PEOPLE , not MILITIAMEN. If the 2nd amendment was intended to restrict gun ownership to militiamen only.. it would have said so.

Edited by lightly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When the 2nd amendment was written Militia men lived at HOME... that is why it says what it says.

* i should add, the amendment says PEOPLE , not MILITIAMEN. If the 2nd amendment was intended to restrict gun ownership to militiamen only.. it would have said so.

couldn't add this info to previous post.. but here it is:

* i'll also add a link to a PDF that clearly shows that gun ownership was a general legal requirement in colonial America. While being a member of a Militia for men aged 16 to 50 was also required in most cases, the requirement for gun ownership usually extended to all Homeowners. Even non homeowners and those exempt from militia duty were required to keep arms.

. . Copy and Paste this web address into your browser for all the details.

www.saf.org/journal/16/colonialfirearmregulation.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It does seem peculiar to me that people still seem to be believing that exactly the same laws and provisions in constitutions should apply now as they did in circumstances that applied 230 or so years ago. Circumstances often change quite a bit in that kind of time; think how many changes, say, France and Russia have experienced in that time. Really, might there not be a case for arguing that some parts of the Constitution might perhaps be in need of some updating, or even discarding? It seems very similar to the Bible really; there's a lot of that that was relevant in particular situations at a particular time, but is perhaps not so applicable these days.

Or would even venturing to suggest such a thing be heretical?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It does seem peculiar to me that people still seem to be believing that exactly the same laws and provisions in constitutions should apply now as they did in circumstances that applied 230 or so years ago. Circumstances often change quite a bit in that kind of time; think how many changes, say, France and Russia have experienced in that time. Really, might there not be a case for arguing that some parts of the Constitution might perhaps be in need of some updating, or even discarding? It seems very similar to the Bible really; there's a lot of that that was relevant in particular situations at a particular time, but is perhaps not so applicable these days.

Or would even venturing to suggest such a thing be heretical?

The way I see it is the Constitution's the law, and if people think a part of it is outdated and wrong, then they should change/amend the Constitution instead of simply violating it. There have already been many amendments to the Constitution. The Second Amendment is itself an amendment. If the people (and government) can violate whatever law they feel is wrong, then why have laws at all? Just call them "guidelines" rather than laws and declare anarchy.

But the right to self-defense will never be outdated, and most Americans seem to agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the 2nd amendment was intended to restrict gun ownership to militiamen only.. it would have said so.

It does. "A well-regulated militia...."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Bible is a history book, and the Constitution is a legal contract. The latter contains provisions for amendment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ninjadude, please read the PDF. .. If you do you will see that colonial law required militiamen and non militiamen (PEOPLE) to KEEP arms.

http://www.saf.org/journal/16/colonialfirearmregulation.pdf

*LINK WORKS NOW^.. check it out.

As for the constitution, including the 2nd amendment, it is what it is . The Second Amendment was ratified in 1791.. and hasn't changed since. Therefore, (PEOPLE) , while no longer having a legal obligation to KEEP arms, still have the right to KEEP arms •

Edited by lightly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting historical account of PRE-revolution firearms. I'm not sure what difference it makes to what's written in the 2nd amendment.

In fact, your article says this "Common to nearly every colony was the requirement that members of the militia (nearly all free white men) possess muskets and ammunition"

You'll notice that there is a very clear distinction between the set of all free white men and the set of those in a militia. And now I remind you again, the 2nd amendment says "A WELL REGULATED MILITIA"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting historical account of PRE-revolution firearms. I'm not sure what difference it makes to what's written in the 2nd amendment.

In fact, your article says this "Common to nearly every colony was the requirement that members of the militia (nearly all free white men) possess muskets and ammunition"

You'll notice that there is a very clear distinction between the set of all free white men and the set of those in a militia. And now I remind you again, the 2nd amendment says "A WELL REGULATED MILITIA"

If Americans do not revolt when they come for our guns then we deserve to fail as a free people. People who desire the eradication of personal gun ownership as a group are a fearful lot. Not necessarily cowards but fearful and unwilling to act to save their own freedom. I've heard people make the argument that small arms are useless against the military and I answer that this is not the point. The point is that a person is willing to go down swinging instead of cowering in an apartment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You do understand that you make it sound like the only people brave enough to actively fight oppression are people who own guns, don't you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's necessary to have Guns to be a free people and to save one's own freedom?

One thing I do find very interesting is how little trust the people of the U.S. seem to have in their armed forces; most countries in the "Free" world, I think it's probably fair to say, seem to have pride in their armed forces, but there seems to be a very strong element in the U.S. that views them with fear and sees their sole purpose as being to rob the freedom from their own people. In other words, very much like any totalitarian state or tin pot dictatorship.

Or not even there; the people of the USSR, for instance, had very great pride in their Armed forces, and the armed forces never took part in the purges, in fact they were one of the main subjects of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... but there seems to be a very strong element in the U.S. that views them with fear and sees their sole purpose as being to rob the freedom from their own people.

It's not that strong. It just feels that way because sites like these tend to concentrate people who believe that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you just ignore the LIMITING factor is A WELL REGULATED MILITIA. PEOPLE in the MILITIA shall not be infringed.

Militia wasnt meant to restrict. This amendment, as clear as day, gives the people both the power to form a militia, AND to keep arms. When it says that "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" Thats what it means.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting historical account of PRE-revolution firearms. I'm not sure what difference it makes to what's written in the 2nd amendment.

In fact, your article says this "Common to nearly every colony was the requirement that members of the militia (nearly all free white men) possess muskets and ammunition"

You'll notice that there is a very clear distinction between the set of all free white men and the set of those in a militia. And now I remind you again, the 2nd amendment says "A WELL REGULATED MILITIA"

lol.. i give up.. you win• This PEOPLE will KEEP his rifle and let it go at that.

It's no wonder we disagree on the meaning of the 2nd amendment. Lawyers and Constitutional scholars have been arguing the point since 1791. In defense of your position, the U.S. supreme court had decided against every case of INDIVIDUAL right to keep arms , determining it to be a STATE's right, ... until 2008 when it's opinion was reversed by a 5/4 decision in the case written of here

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91911807

June 26, 2008

In a dramatic moment on the last day of this term, the Supreme Court declared for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to self-defense and gun ownership.

For most of the last century, the interpretation of the Second Amendment has been that the right to bear arms is a collective right, such as with military service; Thursday's ruling says gun ownership is also an individual right.

Just as a point of interest, here is a link to a list of Colonial , and then , State Constitutional Provisions on the right to bear arms ranging from 1776 until 1998

http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/statedat.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's necessary to have Guns to be a free people and to save one's own freedom?

One thing I do find very interesting is how little trust the people of the U.S. seem to have in their armed forces; most countries in the "Free" world, I think it's probably fair to say, seem to have pride in their armed forces, but there seems to be a very strong element in the U.S. that views them with fear and sees their sole purpose as being to rob the freedom from their own people. In other words, very much like any totalitarian state or tin pot dictatorship.

Or not even there; the people of the USSR, for instance, had very great pride in their Armed forces, and the armed forces never took part in the purges, in fact they were one of the main subjects of them.

A good post, and very thought- provoking.

Perhaps the US populace exhibits a sort of schizoid behavior and attitude towards its military. For the most part they are treated as heros, fighting in wars that are illegitimate and immoral.

On the other hand, some in the populace are informed enough to remember when active duty US troops fired upon former US troops known as the 'Brown Shoe Army' back around 1920. Also, I think they were called the Bonus Army, protesting a pension program. Fired upon and killed several of their "brothers in arms." Hero status?

And who can forget Kent State?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

US troops come and go. It's possible that sometime in the distant future the military will be made up of people less moral and patriotic than the current armed forces. The military troops are products of their culture of course, and if the cultural degradation continues then the future America may have a radically different culture than the current one, and the minority of traditionalists would need to defend themselves from the majority. A few dozen million armed people will make sure the majority doesn't significantly oppress them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Americans do not revolt when they come for our guns then we deserve to fail as a free people. People who desire the eradication of personal gun ownership as a group are a fearful lot. Not necessarily cowards but fearful and unwilling to act to save their own freedom. I've heard people make the argument that small arms are useless against the military and I answer that this is not the point. The point is that a person is willing to go down swinging instead of cowering in an apartment.

You'd be better posting this in the Conspiracy Theory section. I had good laugh. Really? How any sane person can even utter that sentence is beyond me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Militia wasnt meant to restrict. This amendment, as clear as day, gives the people both the power to form a militia, AND to keep arms. When it says that "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" Thats what it means.

Right, people in THE MILITIA. That's why the first LIMITING section exists. The last phrase does not exist in a vacuum. You can't just ignore what you don't like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

he U.S. supreme court had... until 2008 when it's opinion was reversed by a 5/4 decision in the case written of here

After Bush stacked it with ultra conservative right wingers...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

. A few dozen million armed people will make sure the majority doesn't significantly oppress them.

serioously?! another meme for the Conspiracy theory section.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You do understand that you make it sound like the only people brave enough to actively fight oppression are people who own guns, don't you?

If that is your perception of what I said then..okay :blink:

Of course, anyone can fight in innumerable ways against government oppression. In America however we have a tradition of doing so with the maximum amount of force at our disposal. IOW with a counter force that goes beyond civil disobedience. And an armed citizenry that might actually give the government pause before they try to take our rights by force. The rest of the world seems to disagree with our passion for our firearms. We as a group don't understand how they can so blindly trust those in power over them. Fair trade - to each his own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's necessary to have Guns to be a free people and to save one's own freedom?

One thing I do find very interesting is how little trust the people of the U.S. seem to have in their armed forces; most countries in the "Free" world, I think it's probably fair to say, seem to have pride in their armed forces, but there seems to be a very strong element in the U.S. that views them with fear and sees their sole purpose as being to rob the freedom from their own people. In other words, very much like any totalitarian state or tin pot dictatorship.

Or not even there; the people of the USSR, for instance, had very great pride in their Armed forces, and the armed forces never took part in the purges, in fact they were one of the main subjects of them.

Actually, most Americans are very proud of and respect our military. It is the political system of government that we rightly look askance at. The nature of government is to control and grab more and more power. I do not believe the military would ever oppress US citizens after the Syria model. But if they did then they could expect a very long and bloody insurgency. And THAT is why the second amendment is so critical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

serioously?! another meme for the Conspiracy theory section.

I'm talking about the distant future. It's possible that America's culture will radically change and traditionalists (those who refuse to give up the culture of the early 21st century) will become a minority.

If someone in 2012 were to decide to live like people did in the 1700s and start enslaving a few people, would the government and society put up with it? No, because society has radically changed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.