The problem is, that isn't the entire amendment.
We've been over this. Stop trolling.
In before the gun confiscation NUTS.....
- Thread starter Capt Ron 1
- Start date
We've been over this. Stop trolling.
Intentionally, because there is no limit. They'd be fine if I owned 2000 guns and crates of ammunition.
The purpose is to protect the security of a free state via a well regulated militia. Two guns won't accomplish that. Think about when they wrote this amendment, it might clue you in to their intent.
Again, this is a review of a conversation we've already had.
"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."
There is absolutely no limit written into the constitution.
But, keep in mind, the only 'right' is to bear arms. The 'right' is not to unlimited weapons.
Your third sentence contradicts your first one. You are SO bad at this.
Try to follow along:
Statement #1: You can have cookies.
Statement #2: You can have unlimited cookies.
Do you see the difference?
With statement #1, I could give you 5 cookies and be done. I will have given you cookies, just like I said.
With statement #2, I have to give you as many cookies as you want.
Your do-over attempt was even worse! LOL
This is how a troll works:
Troll: Makes a ridiculous claim or statement.
Poster: "What??? You can't possibly believe that!"
Back and forth occurs, after about the 5th reply, poster says "Wait...you're trolling me aren't you? Aw man, you got me, well played!"
Here's how it goes with you:
Theo: Makes a ridiculous claim or statement.
Poster: Too obvious, that's a troll.
Theo: What? I question your reading comprehension! Let me explain it this way.
Poster: Dude, no.
Theo: I can't believe you cannot understand what I am saying! Here let he explain it this way...
Poster: Bro...just take the L and move on.
Theo: So are you saying that what I said isn't what you said, but in reverse?
Poster: Ok I'm leaving now. You are SO bad at this.
Why does it say we need to have the right to bear arms?
Translation...yes, I said exactly what you claimed I said but now I'm going to spin and obfuscate.
He's SO bad at this. It's honestly losing all entertainment value at this point. Ron may have been onto something.
Here's the entire amendment: 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.
I think they should have skipped the first and third comma. Maybe they didn't have a proofreader.
Last edited:
I picture you all standing around in a circle patting each other on the back. 😂
I see the problem.
The government doesn't bestow the right.
We have the right. The government can't infringe on that right.
Since the government didn't give us the cookies, they have no say in what type of "cookie" or quantity thereof.
As to the amendment in its entirety:
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.
This is an explanation of why the government has no control over the "cookies."
The first thing the British government did when the colonists protested the new taxes was send extra troops who promptly massacred said protesters. The second thing they did was try to seize control of munitions. The militias stopped them. As the newly formed government wanted to avoid the glaring issue of standing armies, they wanted to ensure that they would always be able to form militias and that free men would have unfettered access to the "weapons of war. "
There's been an alarming number of trends to include a standing army, blatant violations of posse commitatus, and even laws passed by federal and state governments to limit and ban private militias.
None of these things are constitutional and most likely should be addressed individually as soon as possible.
As to your other concerns:
There are more guns than people in this country. Yes, 100 percent of gun violence is caused by people with guns. Yes, I am motivated partially by fear of armed criminals attempting to harm myself, my wife, or my grandchildren to purchase and carry firearms. Yes, the people who make the guns are the best sources of information about them when selecting one for purchase. And sadly yes, there is a price to be paid in human life for living in a free country with a 2nd amendment. When legislation occurs it must always err on the side of rights over safety.
It is my personal opinion that I can trust in God for my safety but He expects me to help myself by owning a firearm and defending my wife and family and I see no hypocrisy between these concepts.
I don't imagine any of this will influence your thought process but I thought I would attempt to address your concerns without rancor.
Oh, and I drive a truck because a car won't pull my boat.
Last edited:
I see the problem.
The government doesn't bestow the right.
We have the right. The government can't infringe on that right.
Since the government didn't give us the cookies, they have no say in what type of "cookie" or quantity thereof.
As to the amendment in its entirety:
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.
This is an explanation of why the government has no control over the "cookies."
The first thing the British government did when the colonists didn't protested the new taxes was send extra troops who promptly massacred said protesters. The second thing they did was try to seize control of munitions. The militias stopped them. As the newly formed government wanted to avoid the glaring issue of standing armies, they wanted to ensure that they would always be able to form militias and that free men would have unfettered access to the "weapons of war. "
There's been an alarming number of trends to include a standing army, blatant violations of posse commitatus, and even laws passed by federal and state governments to limit and ban private militias.
None of these things are constitutional and most likely should be addressed individually as soon as possible.
As to your other concerns:
There are more guns than people in this country. Yes, 100 percent of gun violence is caused by people with guns. Yes, I am motivated partially by fear of armed criminals attempting to harm myself, my wife, or my grandchildren to purchase and carry firearms. Yes, the people who make the guns are the best sources of information about them when selecting one for purchase. And sadly yes, there is a price to be paid in human life for living in a free country with a 2nd amendment. When legislation occurs it must always err on the side of rights over safety.
It is my personal opinion that I can trust in God for my safety but He expects me to help myself by owning a firearm and defending my wife and family and I see no hypocrisy between these concepts.
I don't imagine any of this will influence your thought process but I thought I would attempt to address your concerns without rancor.
Oh, and I drive a truck because a car won't pull my boat.
This is the part he just doesn't get or simply doesn't agree with.
I was given my rights by God. No government of men can take them from me.
And that is what gun nuts should be saying.
Yes, guns cause a lot of problems but that's the price we pay for freedom.
But instead, they dance in circles saying incredibly stupid things like guns don't kill people.
Either dumber than a brick..or trolling. I think the latter, because I have never seen anyone THAT dumb
I will just put you on the spot here. RIGHT HERE AND NOW. Show me a link...ANYWHERE in the world where a gun killed someone. If you cannot....STFU? Is that fair? We will sit back and wait.
Just wondering how the "nobody needs more than 6 round capacity or more than one gun" conversation is going right now in Israel?
I also have a right to arm myself. And government didn't give me that right. That's the point Theo.
You like to play a game where you ride the fence and use talking points from both sides. That's why I believe that you are trolling.
So you have a problem with the words people say? Not the guns themselves? Makes sense.
...if you're trolling.
Please help me hold his feet to the fire. I want for him to post a link showing when a gun killed someone. I think he may take a break from the board for a while
200+ years ago, apparently they felt a 'well regulated militia' was necessary.
Is that why people buy guns....so they can be part of a 'well regulated militia'? I'm not sure I've ever heard anyone say that.
But situations change, right? Laws that made sense centuries ago don't necessarily make sense today, right?
Some situations change, some do not. The Constitution does not have an expiration date.
He said guns are causing problems. I just wanted to hear what these problems are.
He won't answer, so I guess that's my answer.
But just because something is in the constitution doesn't mean it never changes, right? There have been changes, right?
It is called "AMENDMENTS" Until that happens...the Constitution is our LAW.
AND...did you find any links where a gun hurt someone? Are you dodging?
