- Joined
- Jan 13, 2015
- Messages
- 3,825
- Trophies
- 1
- Location
- The State of Denial
- Website
- gbatemp.net
- XP
- 5,666
- Country
Where do you keep getting that it says a militia should be regulated by the state?
-
Friendly reminder: The politics section is a place where a lot of differing opinions are raised. You may not like what you read here but it is someone's opinion. As long as the debate is respectful you are free to debate freely. Also, the views and opinions expressed by forum members may not necessarily reflect those of GBAtemp. Messages that the staff consider offensive or inflammatory may be removed in line with existing forum terms and conditions.
USA - Russia is mocking you for bringing home a junkie!
- Thread starter mrdude
- Start date
- Views 17,356
- Replies 382
What government is he not referring to? Back up your answer with quoted evidence in his own words.
Sorry to burst your Bubble, but yes, the People do have the Right to Weapons. Due to a item in the Constitution, that even some idiots in Office say we dont have.
In Congress, July 4, 1776
THE UNANIMOUS DECLARATION
of the
THIRTEEN UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume, among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.--That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate, that governments long established, should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these States. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operations till his assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them, and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise; the State remaining, in the meantime, exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavored to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands.
He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers.
He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies, without the consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to the civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:
For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing taxes on us without our consent:
For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury:
For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offences:
For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries, so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments:
For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection, and waging war against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is, at this time, transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy, scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow-citizens, taken captive on the high seas, to bear arms against their country, to become the executioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes, and conditions.
In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have we been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them, from time to time, of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They, too, have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved; and that as free and independent States, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honour.
THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE
In Congress, July 4, 1776
THE UNANIMOUS DECLARATION
of the
THIRTEEN UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume, among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.--That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate, that governments long established, should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these States. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operations till his assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them, and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise; the State remaining, in the meantime, exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavored to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands.
He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers.
He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies, without the consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to the civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:
For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing taxes on us without our consent:
For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury:
For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offences:
For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries, so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments:
For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection, and waging war against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is, at this time, transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy, scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow-citizens, taken captive on the high seas, to bear arms against their country, to become the executioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes, and conditions.
In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have we been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them, from time to time, of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They, too, have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved; and that as free and independent States, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honour.
I don't understand why you think "state" means federal situation, but not the state of everything else. Free state is bill, bob, and john agreeing with each other and forming a colony to eventually enter a mutually-beneficial union with others, not top-down tyranny telling how people need to behave and what qualifies them to be "free". Hence the bill of rights, and why the 2nd amendment is not a roadmap for the fed to remove rights, as you suggest.
"You have not responded to anything I've said"
Last edited by tabzer,
I just pour pineapple juice all over my pizza if I want to ruin it. I see no reason to mock the pizzeria.
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2015
- Messages
- 3,825
- Trophies
- 1
- Location
- The State of Denial
- Website
- gbatemp.net
- XP
- 5,666
- Country
Bro. I dont care what you're defining state as in order to save face.
Read this:
"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."
Then tell me where it says its regulated by the state (regardless of what your definition of the word 'state' may be..)
You were literally quoting the amendment. I know it, you know it, and everyone reading this thread knows it. Its only couple pages back. The fact that you're now trying to play it off as just a coincidental choice of words shows you have no integrity, and everything you say is suspect. You now have absolutely no value in this debate.
Youre defaulting to that retroactively changing your argument as if it were your point the whole time again.
It seems we have a lot of "Expert Armchair lawyers" in here. One week they are experts in Russian/Ukraine geo politics, Human biology the next, Vaccine efficacy the next, The American Bill of Rights the next, Brexit and the UK, Who's racist and who's not, etc.... I wonder what you'll be experts in next week???
"Bro."
Everyone knows what a quote is, and when I chop it into pieces, paraphrase it, and spoon-feed it to you; that ain't it.
The argument never changed. You simply are deflecting from the point that you argued that the 2a is about federal gun control while everything about the text says you are wrong.
And yes, it's for the state.
Pretty bad when @Nothereed is agreeing with you. That stamp is like poison.
Everything you say is trash. I win.
This is all quite a bit off topic from the original post, but it provides an opportunity for a fun exercise.
In other words, Alexander Hamilton claimed that if the government should determine that a standing army ought to exist, then that army ought not be superior to a large body of civilians in regard to the discipline and use of arms because such superiority in arms poses a threat to the liberty of the civilian population.
Please let me know if I made any errors in my analysis. Thank you @J-Machine and @TraderPatTX for providing the opportunity for this exercise.
I'm not quite so sure that is correct. We can use hermeneutics to come to an exegetical interpretation of the text. Although hermeneutics and exegesis are terms usually used in biblical interpretation, this is not the exclusive application. They may be and are applied to any form of communication. If you observe any error in my exegesis of the Alexander Hamilton quote provided by @TraderPatTX, please let me know what my error is so that I may avoid repeating it in the future. Such instruction would permit the opportunity for me to improve myself as a student of biblical literature.
This is referring to any situation that the government deems it necessary to form a standing army of any size.
The term "people" is referring to civilian individuals rather than government body officials. We can conclude this is the case because, in it's context, it is distinct from the term "government" used previously. These are two distinct nouns.
This large body of citizens is referring back to the term "people." The term "them" is referring to the army formed by the government. The term "inferior" is referring back to the large body of citizens. The terms "discipline" and "use" are referring to "arms." Arms in this context would mean weapons, not exclusively black powder projectile firearms.
This clause is referring back to "people."
"Me" is referring to Alexander Hamilton, the author of the written correspondence this is quoted from. The substitute for a standing army that he is referring to is one that is not formidable to the large body of citizens in regard to the discipline and use of arms. Hamilton also asserts that this lack of formidability is the best defense against an oppressive regime if it is determined that a standing army ought to exist.
In other words, Alexander Hamilton claimed that if the government should determine that a standing army ought to exist, then that army ought not be superior to a large body of civilians in regard to the discipline and use of arms because such superiority in arms poses a threat to the liberty of the civilian population.
Please let me know if I made any errors in my analysis. Thank you @J-Machine and @TraderPatTX for providing the opportunity for this exercise.
I think you nailed it. Good analysis.
I'm sure biblical text that has been translated to English is much harder to decipher than text from the 18th and 19th centuries. The Founders purposefully wrote in plain English so everybody could understand what they were trying to say.
Well... almost everybody, as you can see on this forum.
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2007
- Messages
- 4,805
- Trophies
- 2
- Location
- C-137
- Website
- www.youtube.com
- XP
- 3,667
- Country
A junkie can be anyone who'd compromise their well-being, or someone else's, for a particular interest. Weed shouldn't be something that people will lie, cheat, and steal, for... but there are people who do, so it is. Marijuana, by itself, is mostly harmless. It's ironic because the people who are most vocal about weed being the issue here are prioritizing their ideals over the fact that someone went a great distance to break another country's laws. It wasn't just any country, but an "enemy" country. You wouldn't sneak a beer into Qatar, or you should at least know better. If you are willing to risk prison, or worse, for a thing, it's arguable that you have a dependency and have comprised your rationality for it.
My conclusion here, is that Brittney's choice was at the expense of something better being negotiated. It was a shit deal and I truly wonder what optics the Biden administration was going for. Unfortunately for America, Russian "propaganda" offers more of an explanation than Biden.
My conclusion here, is that Brittney's choice was at the expense of something better being negotiated. It was a shit deal and I truly wonder what optics the Biden administration was going for. Unfortunately for America, Russian "propaganda" offers more of an explanation than Biden.
Last edited by tabzer,
There's no point pointing out the obvious to these people, they will do mental gymnastics to try and justify their stance on drugs....and yes, will try and turn the topic away from the drug smuggling and make that out to be a non-issue. They don't respect others or other countries laws, they are all about themselves. That's how narcissists operate. it's their way or they get all screetchy and start looking for a safe space and someone that thinks like them so they can feel that they are the bastion of truth and justice. I've also noticed when they don't get their way they will call you names, usual ones are Racist/Bigot etc, In my experience they think everyone thinks like them and because they are the true racists and bigots they think everyone else is as well and they start calling others that to try and divert the heat away from themselves.
not "the free state" but "free state" as in a state of being free. this isn't about california or texas and their rights as a landmass of governance.
This is how you misquote something @WeedZ. Notice how @J-Machine quoted text that isn't there.
For @J-Machine "the state" could be interpreted as being California if I said "the state of California". The way I am using it is not specifying a political territory or a specific condition of someone or something. You, like @WeedZ, are attempting to fill in the blanks and arriving at your own conclusions. It's a little ironic, considering the way he started on this thread, arguing the benefit of the doubt for the Biden administration.
Last edited by tabzer,
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2015
- Messages
- 3,825
- Trophies
- 1
- Location
- The State of Denial
- Website
- gbatemp.net
- XP
- 5,666
- Country
Or you can be like @tabzer and just pretend like you didn't say what you said because you were wrong..
Tried to interpret the 2nd for me, even said i couldn't English, but when I called him out on it not saying anything about being regulated by the state or not being regulated federally, he says he wasnt quoting the 2nd... but yet here he is, doing just that...
So again I ask you. If I'm the one tripping over English, then were does it say its regulated by the state?
Similar threads
- No one is chatting at the moment.
