Read This!

basscatfrank

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jan 31, 2010
Messages
536
Likes
425
Location
NH
Back in the early 1800's, a lawyer and law professor (no, he was not a community organizer) named St. George Tucker, wrote the first treatise on our then new Constitution. The link below is an article that shows the views of Tucker and the FF's in regards to the Second Amendment. It is very enlightening and can provide more ammo (pun intended) in debates you may have with antis.


http://reason.com/blog/2016/06/20/the-second-amendment-the-bill-of-rights
 
Rating - 100%
9   0   0
Joined
Jun 25, 2014
Messages
15,801
Likes
9,853
I love it. unfortunately some of the more specific reasons such as "that the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their own State, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals."

or

"be never construed...to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable, from keeping their own arms."

or

"Congress shall never disarm any Citizen unless such as are or have been in Actual Rebellion."

or

Anti-Federalists at the Massachusetts ratification convention wanted the Constitution to "be never construed...to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable, from keeping their own arms."



but none of this in this context ever made it to the second amendment. So if they posted a specific definition to the amendment I think we wouldn't need to the NRA today and all this gun control BS would never have happen.




 

whacko

NES Member
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Jul 26, 2012
Messages
12,610
Likes
11,494
I love it. unfortunately some of the more specific reasons such as "that the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their own State, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals."

or

"be never construed...to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable, from keeping their own arms."

or

"Congress shall never disarm any Citizen unless such as are or have been in Actual Rebellion."

or

Anti-Federalists at the Massachusetts ratification convention wanted the Constitution to "be never construed...to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable, from keeping their own arms."



but none of this in this context ever made it to the second amendment. So if they posted a specific definition to the amendment I think we wouldn't need to the NRA today and all this gun control BS would never have happen.





See that shit in red? That would have been in the antis favor.......as the gment could decide who is and is not peaceable and disarm whoever they want. Probably a reason this shit did not make it in the constitution.
 
Last edited:
Rating - 100%
9   0   0
Joined
Jun 25, 2014
Messages
15,801
Likes
9,853
See that shit in red? That would have been in the antis favor.......as the gment could decide who is and is not peaceable and disarm whoever they want. Probably a reason this shit did not make it in the constitution.

no problem with me if they want to take all in red out...which it seems they have done...
 
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Jun 13, 2014
Messages
4,775
Likes
4,918
Location
NC defending a beach
The real problem here is not the wording used in the second amendment or wording that could or should have been used. Any wording would be twisted to meet their agenda. And there are countless examples of this throughout the constitution. For example, the commerce clause has been massively over extended. The equal protection clause of the 16th? Amendment has been massively reinterpreted to suit their agenda. Etc etc etc.

When having a discussion with someone, each party must be intellectually honest with themselves and others. The progressives are not intellectually honest. Not with themselves or with us. There is no way to discuss this with them. We're speaking two different languages.

I'm sad to say that there is no hope in arguing or debating with them. You will not change their hearts or minds.

ETA: Socrates was asked why he never wrote anything down. His response was that whatever he wrote down would be twisted by whoever read it to suit their own agenda and he (Socrates) wouldn't be around to defend and articulate what he meant when he wrote it. Luckily Plato wrote a lot of what he said down. And even that has been twisted, of course.
 

wahsben

NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 100%
36   0   0
Joined
May 20, 2005
Messages
12,121
Likes
6,162
Location
Ma.
Yup, it's all about controlling the narrative to suit their agenda.

The real problem here is not the wording used in the second amendment or wording that could or should have been used. Any wording would be twisted to meet their agenda. And there are countless examples of this throughout the constitution. For example, the commerce clause has been massively over extended. The equal protection clause of the 16th? Amendment has been massively reinterpreted to suit their agenda. Etc etc etc.

When having a discussion with someone, each party must be intellectually honest with themselves and others. The progressives are not intellectually honest. Not with themselves or with us. There is no way to discuss this with them. We're speaking two different languages.

I'm sad to say that there is no hope in arguing or debating with them. You will not change their hearts or minds.

ETA: Socrates was asked why he never wrote anything down. His response was that whatever he wrote down would be twisted by whoever read it to suit their own agenda and he (Socrates) wouldn't be around to defend and articulate what he meant when he wrote it. Luckily Plato wrote a lot of what he said down. And even that has been twisted, of course.
 
Top Bottom