What is the primary reason you support Trump?

Discussion in 'Elections & Campaigns' started by robini123, Apr 7, 2024.

  1. Mitty

    Mitty Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2024
    Messages:
    1,269
    Likes Received:
    164
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Doesn't change the fact that it's about bearing arms in a "a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state"
    What evidence do you have to support your claim that the second amendment doesn't say "a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state"
     
  2. Mitty

    Mitty Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2024
    Messages:
    1,269
    Likes Received:
    164
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    I'm not the slightest bit interested in what a supreme court says, I'm only interested in what the second amendment actually says and means, and it's purpose in 1791 when it was written.

    What evidence do you have that the supreme court says that the second amendment doesn't say anything about bearing arms in "a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state"
     
    Last edited: May 22, 2024
  3. Turtledude

    Turtledude Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2015
    Messages:
    32,932
    Likes Received:
    21,807
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    if you are truthfully only interested in what the second says, why have you constantly and dishonestly changed the words of the amendment?
     
    Lil Mike likes this.
  4. Turtledude

    Turtledude Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2015
    Messages:
    32,932
    Likes Received:
    21,807
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    one of the reasons people need to have, possess keep and bear firearms. One of the reasons.
     
  5. Mitty

    Mitty Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2024
    Messages:
    1,269
    Likes Received:
    164
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    What evidence do you have that the second amendment doesn't say anything about the right to bear arms in "a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state"?
     
    Last edited: May 22, 2024
  6. Mitty

    Mitty Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2024
    Messages:
    1,269
    Likes Received:
    164
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    IOW it's about the need to bear arms in "a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state"
     
  7. Nwolfe35

    Nwolfe35 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2013
    Messages:
    7,987
    Likes Received:
    5,759
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Where did I say otherwise?

    They wanted private citizens to have firearms because they were the first line of defense in case we were attacked. That became moot once we had a standing army. It doesn't change the reason for citizens having firearms...it wasn't personal protection...it wasn't even fear the US government would somehow become a tyrannical government needing to be overthrown by armed citizens.

    It was to provide the states with "well regulated militia" that repel invaders.
     
    Mitty likes this.
  8. Mitty

    Mitty Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2024
    Messages:
    1,269
    Likes Received:
    164
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Why do you constantly and dishonestly ignore what the second amendment says about the need to bear arms in "a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state"
     
    Last edited: May 22, 2024
  9. Turtledude

    Turtledude Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2015
    Messages:
    32,932
    Likes Received:
    21,807
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    because it in NO WAY limits the negative restriction on the federal government
    I used to bill 400 an hour for legal advice. I am giving you a free education here
     
    Pieces of Malarkey likes this.
  10. Turtledude

    Turtledude Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2015
    Messages:
    32,932
    Likes Received:
    21,807
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    and the founders believed that citizens had the right to own, possess, keep and use firearms and that the new federal government had NO POWER WHATSOEVER to interfere with that. You keep missing the obvious point-the issue is not what the people COULD DO and your silly claim that is no longer needed is IRRELEVANT. the federal government was NEVER ALLOWED any power to restrict the arms of private citizens and whether a militia was needed or not does not change that fact
     
  11. Turtledude

    Turtledude Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2015
    Messages:
    32,932
    Likes Received:
    21,807
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    bullshit., it's about a federal government that was never given any power whatsoever over the private arms of private citizens being told it had NO POWER to interfere with privately owned arms whatsoever
     
  12. Turtledude

    Turtledude Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2015
    Messages:
    32,932
    Likes Received:
    21,807
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Here is the different views and why the anti gun position is wrong when it comes to the second

    The gun banner view of the second

    1) citizens only have rights that the government affirmatively grants them
    2) the right to keep and bear arms was granted to citizens ONLY when they were serving in a militia
    3) since we no longer need militias, the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms evaporates because there is no longer that need

    The correct view of the bill of rights

    1) the federal government only has the powers that were specifically granted to it
    2) the bill of rights reiterates what the federal government does not have the power to do
    3) one of those matters was that the federal government was never given any power to regulate privately owned small arms and the second amendment further reiterates that lack of power
    4) whether citizens "NEED" to keep and bear arms matters not-the need or lack thereof does not suddenly empower the federal government to regulate arms


    so when Gun banners talk about a militia being no longer needed-there is no reason or need for us to debate whether this is true or not. It is IRRELEVANT to what the second amendment does
     
    CKW likes this.
  13. Mitty

    Mitty Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2024
    Messages:
    1,269
    Likes Received:
    164
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Have you ever read the second amendment, and if so, where does it say anything about a federal government? Or did you just make that up?
     
  14. Mitty

    Mitty Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2024
    Messages:
    1,269
    Likes Received:
    164
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Have you ever discussed your personal views about the meaning and purpose of the second amendment with the writers of the second amendment?
    And if it was just about the federal government, why did the writers refer to bearing arms in "a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state"
     
    Last edited: May 23, 2024
  15. Turtledude

    Turtledude Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2015
    Messages:
    32,932
    Likes Received:
    21,807
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I taught constitutional law. your posts suggest you obviously never studied it.
     
    Last edited: May 23, 2024
    Lil Mike and Pieces of Malarkey like this.
  16. Turtledude

    Turtledude Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2015
    Messages:
    32,932
    Likes Received:
    21,807
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    LOL you keep digging the hole deeper. Your posts clearly don't understand constitutional law, constitutional theory or the entire concept of a government limited to the powers delegated to it in the constitution.

    remind me where the federal government was given any power to interfere with what arms private citizens could own or use?
     
    Last edited: May 23, 2024
  17. Mitty

    Mitty Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2024
    Messages:
    1,269
    Likes Received:
    164
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    None of that irrelevancy changes the fact that the second amendment is about the right to keep and bear arms in "a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state"
     
    Last edited: May 23, 2024
  18. Mitty

    Mitty Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2024
    Messages:
    1,269
    Likes Received:
    164
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Doesn't change the fact that the second amendment is about the right to keep and bear arms in "a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state"
     
    Last edited: May 23, 2024
  19. Lil Mike

    Lil Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    52,157
    Likes Received:
    23,322
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Wow...so desperate
     
  20. Turtledude

    Turtledude Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2015
    Messages:
    32,932
    Likes Received:
    21,807
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    His arguments are pretty well void of logic so what do you expect? as if the constitution changes based on a tragedy
     
    Lil Mike likes this.
  21. Turtledude

    Turtledude Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2015
    Messages:
    32,932
    Likes Received:
    21,807
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    stop with this nonsense. you are not correct. NOT A SINGLE SUPREME COURT CASE SUPPORTS this fiction.
     
  22. Mitty

    Mitty Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2024
    Messages:
    1,269
    Likes Received:
    164
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    What is your evidence to support your claim that the second amendment is fiction and doesn't say anything at all about "a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" and about the right to keep and bear arms in "a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state"
     
  23. Turtledude

    Turtledude Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2015
    Messages:
    32,932
    Likes Received:
    21,807
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    are you unable to understand this phrase

    the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

    why do you ignore that? why are you unable to comprehend Article One Section Eight? why do you erroneously claim that the ONLY reason the founders PREVENTED the new federal government from INFRINGING ON A RIGHT that the people had since the dawn of time, was so they could SERVE in a militia? how do you appear to a muster if you cannot OWN Firearms prior to that? do you understand that fact? I doubt it
     
  24. Mitty

    Mitty Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2024
    Messages:
    1,269
    Likes Received:
    164
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    IOW the right of people to keep and bear arms in "a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" shall not be infringed, including swords and bayonets.

    Are you unable to understand this phrase?
     
    Last edited: May 23, 2024
  25. Mitty

    Mitty Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2024
    Messages:
    1,269
    Likes Received:
    164
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    So why are you so desperate?
     

Share This Page