My latest fight with a liberal

My latest fight with a liberal

This is a discussion on My latest fight with a liberal within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Here's my latest fight with a liberal on another forum. I know it's long but if anybody has interested in reading it, you may find ...

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 16

Thread: My latest fight with a liberal

  1. #1
    JT [OP]
    JT is offline
    Distinguished Member Array JT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    1,425

    My latest fight with a liberal

    Here's my latest fight with a liberal on another forum. I know it's long but if anybody has interested in reading it, you may find it amusing.

    NOTE: The guy is an English major.

    Quote Originally Posted by Liberal
    Quote Originally Posted by JT
    "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."
    Funny how all the NRA people conveniently forget the "well regulated" part of that amendment.
    Quote Originally Posted by JT
    Funny how you don’t understand the meaning of “well regulated” in the time the amendment was written. Well regulated meant well trained and drilled.

    Quote Originally Posted by Meaning of Well-Regulated Militia
    For many in our time, it is inconceivable to think of anything being well-regulated without a law mandating the regulation and a bureaucracy to conduct the regulation. In the 18th Century, the word regulation did not at all require government involvement. The actions of the American colonists make it plain that a well-regulated militia was well-rehearsed and well-drilled without the control of the government. Indeed, the colonial well-regulated militias shot at the King's policemen (the King's soldiers were acting in the capacity we now consider a police function, but there were no police departments then).

    When the Reverend Josiah Clark met the British forces at Lexington on April 19, 1775, he was serving as the elected commander of his well-regulated militia. He had well-regulated his men many a Sunday afternoon following church services. The British had made the importation of powder illegal and General Gage had sent his men to confiscate colonial stockpiles, along with other war materiel such as muskets and food stores.

    Quote Originally Posted by JT
    Excerpts from a Grammatical analysis of the Second Amendment

    [Professor Copperud:] "The words 'A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,' contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitutes a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying 'militia,' which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject 'the right', verb 'shall'). The to keep and bear arms is asserted as an essential for maintaining a militia.
    "In reply to your numbered questions:

    [Schulman:] "(1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to 'a well-regulated militia'?"

    [Professor Copperud:] "(1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people."

    [Schulman:] "(2) Is 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms' granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right 'shall not be infringed'?"

    [Professor Copperud:] "(2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia."

    [Schulman:] "(3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well regulated militia, is, in fact necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed' null and void?"

    [Professor Copperud:] "(3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence."

    [Schulman:] "(4) Does the clause 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,' grant a right to the government to place conditions on the 'right of the people to keep and bear arms,' or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?"

    [Professor Copperud:] "(4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia."

    Professor Roy Copperud was a newspaper writer on major dailies for over three decades before embarking on a a distinguished 17-year career teaching journalism at USC. Since 1952, Copperud has been writing a column dealing with the professional aspects of journalism for "Editor and Publisher", a weekly magazine focusing on the journalism field.

    He's on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and Merriam Webster's Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an expert. Copperud's fifth book on usage, "American Usage and Style: The Consensus," has been in continuous print from Van Nostrand Reinhold since 1981, and is the winner of the Association of American Publisher's Humanities Award.

    Quote Originally Posted by Liberal
    Nice try, but you're wrong. Although the Oxford English Dictionary does give one of the meanings of "regulated" as "disciplined", it also notes that the usage was obscure and rare, in fact, citing one usage of that as such from 1690. Approximately 100 years before the document in question.

    However, "regulated" as "Governed by rule, properly controlled or directed" gets multiple citations including such dates as 1766, 1790 and 1828.

    Your sources need to check their facts.

    I'll reprint the entire entry here:

    a. Governed by rule, properly controlled or directed, adjusted to some standard, etc. regulated tenancy, a tenancy the rent of which is regulated by the terms of the Rent Acts (see quot. 1965).
    Also freq. in combs., as badly-, ill-, well-regulated.
    1641 W. T. (title) Regulated Zeal, or, An earnest request to all Zealously affected Christians, to seeke the desired Reformation in a peaceable way. 1697 Jos. Woodward Relig. Soc. London ii. (1701) 19 Those regulated Societies, which are now conspicuous among us for many good works. a1704 T. Brown Satire Antients Wks. 1730 I. 16 These [verses]+had regulated forms, that is regular dances and musick. 1766 Compl. Farmer s.v. Surveying, Then may you measure all the whole chains by your regulated chain. a1790 Adam Smith W.N. v. i. iii. i. (Bohn) II. 253 When those companies+are obliged to admit any person, properly qualified,+they are called regulated companies. 1828 Spearman Brit. Gunner (ed. 2) 336 They are fired with a regulated charge of powder and shot. 1848 Alison Hist. Europe ii. §23 I. 121 Regulated freedom is the greatest blessing in life. 1965 Act Eliz. II c. 75 §1 In this Act ‘regulated tenancy’ means—a) a tenancy to which the Rent Acts apply by virtue of this section; or b) a statutory tenancy arising on the termination of such a tenancy as is mentioned in paragraph (a) of this subsection. 1970 Internat. & Compar. Law Q. 4th Ser. XIX. ii. 206 Unfurnished tenancies under the Rent Act being either (2) ‘controlled’ or (3) ‘regulated tenancies’.

    †b. Of troops: Properly disciplined. Obs. rare—1.
    1690 Lond. Gaz. No. 2568/3 We hear likewise that the French are in a great Allarm in Dauphine and Bresse, not having at present 1500 Men of regulated Troops on that side.
    ================================================== ======

    Although I'm sure you consider the "Grammatical Analysis" you quoted to be the end-all, be-all of the discussion, Copperud doesn't present an argument at all, much less a convincing one. He makes four claims, but provides no support or backing for those claims. And the warrant on which we're to accept his claims is that he's an "expert" in Modern American English. A language that is a far cry from the English spoken in a British Colony 200 years ago. I'm not saying that he's necessarily wrong, I'm just saying that he (and by extention, you) doesn't present a convincing enough argument to convince anyone who doesn't already believe as he does.

    Cliff Notes: If you're going to refute me, do it properly and with some proof.

    Quote Originally Posted by JT
    Nice try, but you are wrong.

    If you are going to debate me, stop being so pompous. i.e. "do it properly and with some proof"

    Anyway...

    First of all...

    The origin of the phrase "a well regulated militia" comes from a 1698 treatise "A Discourse of Government with Relation to Militias" by Andrew Fletcher, in which the term "well regulated" was equated with "well-behaved" or "disciplined". This document was widely published during the colonial and revolutionary periods, and was the basis for state and federal 'bills of rights'.

    So your need to check your facts.

    Second...

    I never said the grammatical analysis was the end-all. But the professor is an expert in his field and does provide a convincing argument for the grammar.

    Now, onto the courts….


    Myth: The Supreme Court ruled the Second Amendment is not an individual right

    Fact: The Supreme Court has never been asked to decide this issue. All court rulings to date either mention the Second amendment in passing, or as a reference to other rights.

    Fact: Of 300 decisions of the federal and state courts that have taken a position on the meaning of the Second Amendment or the state analogs to it, only 10 have claimed that the right to keep and bear arms is not an individual right. Many of the other decisions struck down gun control laws because they conflicted with the Second Amendment, such as State v. Nunn (Ga. 1846)

    Fact: In the Dred Scott case of 1856, the Supreme Court listed the protected rights of citizens and explicitly listed the right to keep and bear arms, and gave this right equal weight to the other freedoms enumerated in the constitution.

    Myth: U.S. v. Miller said that the Second Amendment is not an individual right

    Fact: The Miller case specifically held that specific types of guns might be protected by the Second Amendment. It depended on whether a gun had militia use, and the court wanted evidence presented confirming that citizens have a right to military style weapons. Since no evidence was taken at the trial level in lower courts, they remanded the case for a new trial. Specifically the court said:

    "The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

    “In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.”

    Fact: Even the US government agreed. Here are some sentences from the brief filed by the government in the appeal to the Supreme Court:

    “The Second Amendment does not grant to the people the right to keep and bear arms, but merely recognizes the prior existence of that right and prohibits its infringement by Congress.”

    “The "arms" referred to in the Second Amendment are, moreover, those which ordinarily are used for military or public defense purposes . . .”

    “The Second Amendment does not confer upon the people the right to keep and bear arms; it is one of the provisions of the Constitution which, recognizing the prior existence of a certain right, declares that it shall not be infringed by Congress. Thus the right to keep and bear arms is not a right granted by the Constitution and therefore is not dependant upon that instrument for its source.”


    Fact: The federal 8th Court of Appeals holds that the Miller case protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. “Although an individual's right to bear arms is constitutionally protected, see United States v. Miller . . .” (U.S. v. Hutzel, 8 Iowa, No. 99-3719)

    Fact: Federal courts reject the myth. “We conclude that Miller does not support the [government's] collective rights or sophisticated collective rights approach to the Second Amendment.” ( U.S. v. Emerson, 5th court of Appeals decision, November 2, 2001, No. 99-10331)They continue, “There is no evidence in the text of the Second Amendment, or any other part of the Constitution, that the words ‘we the people’ have a different onnotation within the Second Amendment than when employed elsewhere . .

    · U.S. v. Hutzell, 8 Iowa, 99-3719, (2000) (cite in dictum that "an individual's right to keep and bear arms is constitutionally protected, see United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 178-79 (1939).")




    DECISIONS THAT RECOGNIZED THE SECOND AMENDMENT GUARANTEES AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO POSSESS OR CARRY FIREARMS, BUT ONLY LIMITING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S AUTHORITY:
    · U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 552 (1876) (limiting use of the Enforcement Act of 1870 so that Klansmen could not be punished for mass murder and disarming of freedmen);
    · State v. Workman, 35 W.Va. 367, 373 (1891) (upholding a ban on carry of
    various concealable arms);
    · State v. Kerner, 181 N.C. 574, 107 S.E. 222 (1921) (overturning a ban on open
    carry of pistols based on North Carolina Const., but acknowledging Second
    Amendment protected individual right from federal laws).


    DECISIONS IN WHICH THE SECOND AMENDMENT WAS ARGUED OR RAISED AS A LIMITATION ON STATE LAWS, AND IN WHICH THE COURT RULED THAT IT ONLY LIMITED THE FEDERALGOVERNMENT, TACITLY ACKNOWLEDGING THAT THE RIGHT WAS INDIVIDUAL IN NATURE:
    · Andrews v. State, 3 Heisk. (50 Tenn.) 165, 172, 173 (1871);
    · Fife v. State, 31 Ark. 455, 25 Am.Rep. 556, 557, 558 (1876); State v. Hill, 53 Ga. 472, 473, 474 (1874);
    · Dunne v. People, 94 Ill. 120, 140, 141 (1879); Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 265, 266 (1886) (upholding a ban on armed bodies marching through the streets);
    · People v. Persce, 204 N.Y. 397, 403 (1912); In re Rameriz, 193 Cal. 633, 636, 226 P. 914 (1924) (upholding a ban on resident aliens possessing handguns).

    DECISIONS IN WHICH THE SECOND AMENDMENT WAS IMPLIED TO GUARANTEE AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT, THOUGH UNCLEAR AS TO WHETHER IT LIMITED ONLY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OR STATES AS WELL, BECAUSE THE TYPE OF ARM IN QUESTION WASN'T PROTECTED:
    · English v. State, 35 Tex. 473, 476, 477 (1872)
    · State v. Duke, 42 Tex. 455, 458, 459 (1875) (upholding a ban on carrying of handguns, Bowie knives, sword-canes, spears, and brass knuckles); · People v. Liss, 406 Ill. 419, 94 N.E.2d 320, 322, 323 (1950) (overturning a conviction for carrying a concealed handgun and acknowledging that the right in the Second Amendment was individual);
    · Guida v. Dier, 84 Misc.2d 110, 375 N.Y.S.2d 827, 828 (1975) (denying that"concealable hand weapons" were protected by the Second Amendment, but acknowledging that an individual right protects other firearms).

    DECISIONS IN WHICH THE SECOND AMENDMENT HAS BEEN CLASSED WITH OTHER INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, WITH NO INDICATION THAT IT WAS NOT AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT:
    · Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275, 281, 282, 17 S.Ct. 826, 829 (1897); U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 110 S.Ct. 1056, 1060, 1061 (1990).
    DECISIONS THAT COULD HAVE BEEN VERY MUCH SHORTER IF THE COURT HAD SIMPLY DENIED THAT THE SECOND AMENDMENT PROTECTED AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT:
    · U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) (the Supreme Court upholding the National Firearms Act of 1934, after district judge released defendants on the grounds that it violated Second Amendment).

    Quote Originally Posted by Liberal
    Quote Originally Posted by JT
    I never said the grammatical analysis was the end-all. But the professor is an expert in his field and does provide a convincing argument for the grammar.
    My point is that he doesn't present an argument at all. He makes claims, but provides no proof for them. It's only "convincing" if you already agree with what he has to say.

    Quote Originally Posted by JT
    Quote Originally Posted by Liberal
    My point is that he doesn't present an argument at all. He makes claims, but provides no proof for them. It's only "convincing" if you already agree with what he has to say.
    I was citing an expert in the field, as you will see from his credentials at the bottom of the post. Like the opinion of an expert witness in court.

    What I posted from him did not even address the meaning of “well regulated”. It was addressing whether or not the first phrase of the amendment limited the possession of arms only to a militia. Even if it did (which it does not), we have the Supreme Court stating…

    "The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."


    So there were several points I was addressing:

    What is “Well Regulated”?
    Does it mean that only Militias can keep and bear arms?
    What is the Militia?

    Quote Originally Posted by Liberal
    And the point I was addressing is, a list of credentials is a far cry from a well-formed argument. Which your professor does not provide.

    Quote Originally Posted by JT
    And you are picking out one small part of my argument. You are not addressing The Court rulings. You are not addressing "A Discourse of Government with Relation to Militias" by Andrew Fletcher. And you are not even arguing with the Professor's analysis of the grammar structure of the sentence, which was the whole point of my quotes by him. He was not a NRA member sounding off. He was a neutral party asked to do a purely grammatical analysis of the amendment.

    Quote Originally Posted by Liberal
    That's because I don't think your larger argument is important enough to give much more than a couple minutes thought to. I don't have to address Fletcher (which nicely fits the time period of the obscure usage), and, the point you keep missing, the Professor hasn't provided anything to argue with. He just made a blanket statement. No proof, no qualification, no support. Just because he has a list of credentials doesn't mean he's right. In fact, because he seems unable to make an attempt at a proper argument, I tend to trust his analysis less.

    EDIT: And supreme court rulings are hardly definitive when it comes to rules of the english language.

    Quote Originally Posted by JT
    Quote Originally Posted by Liberal
    That's because I don't think your larger argument is important enough to give much more than a couple minutes thought to. I don't have to address Fletcher (which nicely fits the time period of the obscure usage) .
    He wrote it in 1698, and it is well known to have influenced our founding fathers. There was a relativley short period of time between him writing it and the writing of our Constitution.
    Quote Originally Posted by Liberal
    the point you keep missing, the Professor hasn't provided anything to argue with. He just made a blanket statement. No proof, no qualification, no support. Just because he has a list of credentials doesn't mean he's right. In fact, because he seems unable to make an attempt at a proper argument, I tend to trust his analysis less. .
    You keep missing the point that he is an expert in his field asked to respond to specific questions, with his expertise being the point. You have not argued with his points at all, other than possibly missing the point that he was talking about the grammer structure and I never quoted him regarding the meaning of “well regulated”. In another part of the piece he actually alluded to not having full knowledge of the historical use of the term.

    Quote Originally Posted by Liberal
    EDIT: And supreme court rulings are hardly definitive when it comes to rules of the english language.
    Wow, you really missed the point there. I never said the courts were ruling on grammar. They addressed the larger issue of what the amendment means.

    They funny thing is this whole argument came out of your statement…

    Quote Originally Posted by Liberal
    Funny how all the NRA people conveniently forget the "well regulated" part of that amendment. .
    Which I did take to include me, since I have made it well known that I am a Life Member. Will you at least admit this statement is wrong, since there is a plethora of writings out there by NRA members on what “well regulated” means?

    Quote Originally Posted by Liberal
    Sure, I'll revise my statement. It's foolish in general to use the term "all" when referring to a set of people.

    "Funny how most NRA people find a definition of "well regulated" that is both A) convenient to their views and B) contrary to the accepted and traditional definition of the phrase"
    Quote Originally Posted by JT
    Quote Originally Posted by Liberal
    contrary to the accepted and traditional definition of the phrase"
    Proof?

    Even your definition provided a use for "troops" from the time period in which "A Discourse of Government with Relation to Militias" by Andrew Fletcher was written. A document that was well known to have influenced our founding fathers.

    On a side note, if during the 1700's you brought your double barreld musket or shotgun to a gunsmith and asked him to “regulate it” he would adjust the barrels so the rounds or shot would hit in a uniform pattern and on target together at a given distance.
    Quote Originally Posted by Liberal
    My proof lies in the "rare and obs." next to the 2nd definition of "regulated". "rare and obs." means rare and obsolete which is not the same as accepted and traditional.

    Quote Originally Posted by JT
    Obsolete now, but not then. How do you explain this?

    From Federalist Paper #29

    In which Hamilton is discussing the composition of the militia and says, "To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia…”

    Note that "well-regulated" clearly refers to how well the militia functions and how well trained are the militia members. It does not refer at all to the degree to which the government controls the militia or the members of the militia.
    Blessed be the Lord my rock who trains my hands for war and my fingers for battle. Psalm 144:1

    Si vis pacem, para bellum


  2. #2
    VIP Member Array Euclidean's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,213
    Is that a washing machine I hear? Because it sounds like JT is taking somebody to the cleaners.

    Twit. I love how he "counters" your research (which quite frankly I didn't know the entirety of) with a cut and paste definition from a contemporary online dictionary.

  3. #3
    Senior Moderator
    Array Tangle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Chattanooga
    Posts
    9,907
    JT,
    You done good man! Your only mistake is thinking that a liberal could understand logic and common sense.

  4. #4
    Assistant Administrator
    Array P95Carry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    South West PA
    Posts
    25,484
    Hahahah - Tangle - you said it Sir!!!

    JT - two choc-chip cookies to you for such outstanding endurance and answering the call of duty!! My patience would never have stretched so far!
    Chris - P95
    NRA Certified Instructor & NRA Life Member.

    "To own a gun and assume that you are armed
    is like owning a piano and assuming that you are a musician!."


    http://www.rkba-2a.com/ - a portal for 2A links, articles and some videos.

  5. #5
    VIP Member
    Array Team American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    3,826
    Well done, Sir! Is this "*****-slap-in-progress" still going on? :2bitchsla

    Sometimes getting muddy while "pig-wrestling" can be entertaining :1prost:
    "I surrounded 'em"- Alvin York

    "They're ain't many troubles that a man can't fix with seven hundred dollars and a thirty ought six"- Jeff Cooper

  6. #6
    VIP Member Array havegunjoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    2,206
    JT, EXCELLENT! Not much else to say.
    DEMOCRACY IS TWO WOLVES AND A LAMB VOTING ON WHAT TO HAVE FOR LUNCH. LIBERTY IS A WELL ARMED LAMB CONtestING THE VOTE.

    Certified Instructor for Minnesota Carry Permit
    NRA Pistol and Personal Protection Insrtuctor
    Utah Permit Certified Instructor

  7. #7
    JT [OP]
    JT is offline
    Distinguished Member Array JT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    1,425
    Thanks guys.

    He hasn’t shown back up. I have fought with him before, and sometimes he will disappear for a few days or even weeks when things don’t go his way. Or he will wait until late at night to come back and post.
    Blessed be the Lord my rock who trains my hands for war and my fingers for battle. Psalm 144:1

    Si vis pacem, para bellum

  8. #8
    Member Array 500Mag's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    West Chester, PA
    Posts
    418
    When i read the second amendment i see, "the right of the People, shall not be infringed". People's right, not militia's.

    Also last i checked all the other amendments in the bill of rights are granted to individuals...free speech, speedy trial, no quartering of soldiers in one's house, etc. So why in the world would this one ever so special amendment be any different. Just my thoughts. I get really amped up when people say the 2nd is for "militias" and not people.
    "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."

  9. #9
    JT [OP]
    JT is offline
    Distinguished Member Array JT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    1,425
    Exactly. I've seen the light bulb go off in people's heads many times by just asking them why all of the rest of the Bill of Rights would apply to individuals, but not the 2nd. Of course these were the more open minded, but uninformed type. Not the die hard anti-gun types.
    Blessed be the Lord my rock who trains my hands for war and my fingers for battle. Psalm 144:1

    Si vis pacem, para bellum

  10. #10
    Senior Member Array CombatEffective's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    998
    A well regulated library, being necessary for the literacy of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed.


    Does that mean that only the states can have guns?
    Shooters' Legacy

    Special sections for S&W and Ruger

  11. #11
    Member Array SSKC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    357
    Originally Posted by Liberal
    And the point I was addressing is, a list of credentials is a far cry from a well-formed argument. Which your professor does not provide.

    This individual's command of sentence structure leads me to question his prospects for success in his chosen field (English major).

    JT, on the other hand, handled his portion of the one-sided debate with aplomb.

    SSKC

  12. #12
    Administrator
    Array QKShooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Off Of The X
    Posts
    35,912

    Post Genuine Support

    A great deal of support for our Right To Keep And Bear Arms can also be gained by looking at various early individual State Constitutions to see EXACTLY how our RKBA was interpreted BEFORE Ultra~Liberal~Left~Wing~Gun Hater~Morons started trying to mince up words, phrases, and sentences.
    It all could not be spelled out better than in the Good Old Pennsylvania State Constitution which simply states:


    Right to Bear Arms
    Section 21.
    The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.



    The founders of The PA. State Constitution KNEW BACK THEN that State Government was not even ALLOWED to QUESTION our Citizen Right To Keep And Bear Arms for PERSONAL PROTECTION. SHORT SWEET AND SIMPLE!
    What Could Be MORE CLEAR Than That?

  13. #13
    JT [OP]
    JT is offline
    Distinguished Member Array JT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    1,425
    Thanks SSKC.

    And great point QkShooter. I would say I would bring up your points to him, but the argument is dead. Our argument was not the initial topic of the thread (it was about looting) so he just followed his normal tactic when he is loosing an argument. He went away for enough time to pass that there were a couple of pages of posts and change in topic by the time he came back. That way he could join back in without having to finish our argument.
    Blessed be the Lord my rock who trains my hands for war and my fingers for battle. Psalm 144:1

    Si vis pacem, para bellum

  14. #14
    Senior Member Array Free American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    749
    JT,

    Doesn't it hurt your brain to argue with idiots?? I know when I argue with my kids my head starts to get these shooting pains from the neck into the eyeballs.
    They who give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin


    Previously known as "cjm5874"

  15. #15
    Assistant Administrator
    Array P95Carry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    South West PA
    Posts
    25,484
    Doesn't it hurt your brain to argue with idiots??
    cjm - I have experienced this - way too often - but for me the hurt also extends lower as well
    Chris - P95
    NRA Certified Instructor & NRA Life Member.

    "To own a gun and assume that you are armed
    is like owning a piano and assuming that you are a musician!."


    http://www.rkba-2a.com/ - a portal for 2A links, articles and some videos.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Ready for a fight? Or looking for a fight?
    By bigmacque in forum Carry & Defensive Scenarios
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: November 25th, 2010, 12:57 PM
  2. You just can't win with a liberal
    By atctimmy in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 61
    Last Post: May 19th, 2008, 05:29 PM
  3. Priorities of the Gun Fight and “The Fight Continuum”
    By Sweatnbullets in forum Defensive Carry & Tactical Training
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: January 7th, 2008, 04:05 AM
  4. Oh god a liberal
    By nitrogen in forum New Members Introduce Yourself
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: January 16th, 2006, 11:00 PM