Quote
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.
Not the right of a well regulated militia to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Here, I'll paraphrase for you.
"Against a standing army, the only defense of the common man is to unite and overthrow them as a militia! ...Y'all know what a militia is right? A fighting force that is not state trained or sponsored, it's basically what we did. Don't let anyone legislate this right away so that you might always have that same chance. C'mon now, don't be scaredy cats who are afraid of tools," - James Madison
If you honestly believe that the 2nd amendment was written to allow for the national guard and military to handle guns, explain to me why no one ever shut down Remington. It's one thing to be a chicken who'd trade liberty for the false sense of protection that banning guns might give you, but you're just being an idiot acting as though the 2nd was not written for the "PEOPLE".
Quote
They're afraid so what's logical is morphed in their head to support their idea, however stupid.
A birthday party being good for celebrating the continuing of life, the rights of the people to purchase and light birthday candles shall not be infringed.
A birthday party being good for celebrating the continuing of life, the rights of the birthday party(insert previous phrase invisiblizer) people to purchase and light birthday candles shall not be infringed.
Quote
Damn high school debate, teaching people that anything is right if you argue it correctly.
They cannot make the same arguments because they don't have that leg to stand on. They can call me stupid or cowardly, but they cannot make fun of the fact the second amendment is worded in a way that dismisses my claims. As written, the second amendment applies to the people. It says so in the text. Their arguement rewrites the amendment, mine does not.
Think about this, Remington started selling guns to the public in 1816. James Madison, who wrote the second amendment, was president in 1816. Why didn't Madison say, "this is not what I meant" and shut down Remington? Because the second amendment was written to protect the rights of the people and restrict the powers of the federal government, just like the rest of the Bill of Rights. That's why.
"Hey Miyagi, you're just scared of facing an unarmed or knife wielding opponent without your gun. You're a stupid coward."
"No, I'm not. My tooting about gun rights are more about a corrupt federal government thinking it can take more and more of our liberties away from us under the pretense that they're protecting us from the boogeyman. I probably would pull a gun on a criminal assailant if I was ever assaulted while armed, but I carry a knife with me instead of a gun in my daily affairs. Leave me alone, Colossus, I don't have metal skin."
The majority of each of these posts is more about the wording of the 2nd amendment and the notion that it's original intention was to ensure the national guard was armed than any of the rhetoric you keep accusing me of. I personally have never heard anyone other than myself question the "2nd amendment was written for the national guard" crowd about Remington and why the founding fathers allowed them to sell firearms. I have been arguing about the meaning of the 2nd amendment, not about pro-gun rhetoric. The person who dismisses and does not listen in arguments is YOU. Dun dun DUNNNN!!!!
Seriously, did I get beligerent at you in a previous thread? Do you hold me to a higher posting standard than everyone else for some silly reason? What's the issue here? I'm truly sorry if I did get beligerent at you, even if I'm not all that impressed with your logic here. I tend not to remember who I was in arguments with here. It's not a very important interaction to me.