All Forums > General Discussion > Non-Sports > WHEN WILD BOARS ATTACK?
1/30/2013 3:27 PM
Posted by swamphawk22 on 1/30/2013 3:22:00 PM (view original):
And as it has been pointed out "Keep and bear arms" means own and carry.

You cannot carry a fighter plane or a tank or even a piece of field artillary that would have been available in 1776.

Where in the Constitution is "keep and bear arms" specifically defined as "own and carry"?

You realize that you don't help your argument when you start randomly making **** up, don't you?
1/30/2013 5:55 PM
Keep...Have or retain possession of

Bear...(of a person) Carry

Simple vocab.

Can you find anything that would dispute it?

It makes sense that they meant personal weapons and not Ships of the line or Field Artillary.

1/31/2013 1:41 AM
Swamp...what does "well-regulated militia" mean? Why do the gun fetishists always ignore that FIRST part of the 2nd Amendment?
1/31/2013 2:30 AM
It meant that the people needed to be able to stand against a tyranical army.

The federal government absobrbed the National Guard so it cannot be counted.

You are not trying to imply that the 2nd Amendment of the bill of rights was about giving power to the Federal Government are you?
1/31/2013 8:46 AM
In this day and age, I don't think "well-regulated militia" applies.   Back in the 1700s, you couldn't deploy a Federal army in a matter of hours.   If Spain decided to overrun Georgia(which happened while under British rule), there was no quick way to assist them as a country.   Of course, this applied to any state.   And, naturally, a band of criminals could ransack an entire town before outside help could arrive(or even know of it).  So people had to have the ability to defend themselves.

So, while well-regulated militia is obsolete, I don't think the ability to defend oneself is.   That's why the 2nd Amendment is still relevant.
1/31/2013 9:13 AM
Posted by MikeT23 on 1/31/2013 8:46:00 AM (view original):
In this day and age, I don't think "well-regulated militia" applies.   Back in the 1700s, you couldn't deploy a Federal army in a matter of hours.   If Spain decided to overrun Georgia(which happened while under British rule), there was no quick way to assist them as a country.   Of course, this applied to any state.   And, naturally, a band of criminals could ransack an entire town before outside help could arrive(or even know of it).  So people had to have the ability to defend themselves.

So, while well-regulated militia is obsolete, I don't think the ability to defend oneself is.   That's why the 2nd Amendment is still relevant.
Nice selective interpretation of the Constitution. Typical move, pick and choose the parts you insist are absolute, and totally ignore the parts that suggest options contrary to your position. I will see your obsoleteness of a well-regulated militia since that no longer applies, and raise you the ability to own the firearms the founding fathers had experience with...muzzle-loaders.
1/31/2013 9:15 AM
Posted by MikeT23 on 1/31/2013 8:46:00 AM (view original):
In this day and age, I don't think "well-regulated militia" applies.   Back in the 1700s, you couldn't deploy a Federal army in a matter of hours.   If Spain decided to overrun Georgia(which happened while under British rule), there was no quick way to assist them as a country.   Of course, this applied to any state.   And, naturally, a band of criminals could ransack an entire town before outside help could arrive(or even know of it).  So people had to have the ability to defend themselves.

So, while well-regulated militia is obsolete, I don't think the ability to defend oneself is.   That's why the 2nd Amendment is still relevant.
So is it fair to say that the Second Amendment should not necessarily be interpreted and applied in exactly the same way in 2013 as it was in 1789, because the world has changed?
1/31/2013 9:25 AM
I certainly thinks it's fair.   Over my last 1000 posts on this entire debate, I've never said that any 230 y/o document should be interpreted the same way as it was when it was written.

My argument has always been "Tell me what you want and what you hope to accomplish by interpreting the 2nd Amendment the way you do."   And, quite frankly, the "BAN HCAW" group has fallen miserably short in explaining their side.
1/31/2013 9:29 AM
Posted by seamar_116 on 1/31/2013 9:13:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 1/31/2013 8:46:00 AM (view original):
In this day and age, I don't think "well-regulated militia" applies.   Back in the 1700s, you couldn't deploy a Federal army in a matter of hours.   If Spain decided to overrun Georgia(which happened while under British rule), there was no quick way to assist them as a country.   Of course, this applied to any state.   And, naturally, a band of criminals could ransack an entire town before outside help could arrive(or even know of it).  So people had to have the ability to defend themselves.

So, while well-regulated militia is obsolete, I don't think the ability to defend oneself is.   That's why the 2nd Amendment is still relevant.
Nice selective interpretation of the Constitution. Typical move, pick and choose the parts you insist are absolute, and totally ignore the parts that suggest options contrary to your position. I will see your obsoleteness of a well-regulated militia since that no longer applies, and raise you the ability to own the firearms the founding fathers had experience with...muzzle-loaders.
If you can promise me that I'll be robbed and killed by a man wielding a muzzle-loader, I completely agree.

1/31/2013 11:24 AM
Posted by tecwrg on 1/31/2013 9:15:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 1/31/2013 8:46:00 AM (view original):
In this day and age, I don't think "well-regulated militia" applies.   Back in the 1700s, you couldn't deploy a Federal army in a matter of hours.   If Spain decided to overrun Georgia(which happened while under British rule), there was no quick way to assist them as a country.   Of course, this applied to any state.   And, naturally, a band of criminals could ransack an entire town before outside help could arrive(or even know of it).  So people had to have the ability to defend themselves.

So, while well-regulated militia is obsolete, I don't think the ability to defend oneself is.   That's why the 2nd Amendment is still relevant.
So is it fair to say that the Second Amendment should not necessarily be interpreted and applied in exactly the same way in 2013 as it was in 1789, because the world has changed?
Shocking!
1/31/2013 12:01 PM
Posted by seamar_116 on 1/31/2013 9:13:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 1/31/2013 8:46:00 AM (view original):
In this day and age, I don't think "well-regulated militia" applies.   Back in the 1700s, you couldn't deploy a Federal army in a matter of hours.   If Spain decided to overrun Georgia(which happened while under British rule), there was no quick way to assist them as a country.   Of course, this applied to any state.   And, naturally, a band of criminals could ransack an entire town before outside help could arrive(or even know of it).  So people had to have the ability to defend themselves.

So, while well-regulated militia is obsolete, I don't think the ability to defend oneself is.   That's why the 2nd Amendment is still relevant.
Nice selective interpretation of the Constitution. Typical move, pick and choose the parts you insist are absolute, and totally ignore the parts that suggest options contrary to your position. I will see your obsoleteness of a well-regulated militia since that no longer applies, and raise you the ability to own the firearms the founding fathers had experience with...muzzle-loaders.
This interpretation was handed down by the supreme court.  They determined, in the majority opinion (I can't remember the case off the top of my head), that the term "right of the people" trumps the term "well-regulated militia".  You can argue that the Supreme Court's inerpretation was incorrect, but it's not an argument that's being pulled out of thin air.
1/31/2013 6:39 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 1/31/2013 9:15:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 1/31/2013 8:46:00 AM (view original):
In this day and age, I don't think "well-regulated militia" applies.   Back in the 1700s, you couldn't deploy a Federal army in a matter of hours.   If Spain decided to overrun Georgia(which happened while under British rule), there was no quick way to assist them as a country.   Of course, this applied to any state.   And, naturally, a band of criminals could ransack an entire town before outside help could arrive(or even know of it).  So people had to have the ability to defend themselves.

So, while well-regulated militia is obsolete, I don't think the ability to defend oneself is.   That's why the 2nd Amendment is still relevant.
So is it fair to say that the Second Amendment should not necessarily be interpreted and applied in exactly the same way in 2013 as it was in 1789, because the world has changed?

No.

The same threat of a tyranical government exists today.

The people need the ability to arm themselves outside of the scope of the Federal Government.

The 2nd Amendment isnt about giving power to the Federal Government. Just like all the other amendments it is about limiting the power of the Federal Government.

1/31/2013 6:48 PM
Posted by swamphawk22 on 1/31/2013 6:39:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 1/31/2013 9:15:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 1/31/2013 8:46:00 AM (view original):
In this day and age, I don't think "well-regulated militia" applies.   Back in the 1700s, you couldn't deploy a Federal army in a matter of hours.   If Spain decided to overrun Georgia(which happened while under British rule), there was no quick way to assist them as a country.   Of course, this applied to any state.   And, naturally, a band of criminals could ransack an entire town before outside help could arrive(or even know of it).  So people had to have the ability to defend themselves.

So, while well-regulated militia is obsolete, I don't think the ability to defend oneself is.   That's why the 2nd Amendment is still relevant.
So is it fair to say that the Second Amendment should not necessarily be interpreted and applied in exactly the same way in 2013 as it was in 1789, because the world has changed?

No.

The same threat of a tyranical government exists today.

The people need the ability to arm themselves outside of the scope of the Federal Government.

The 2nd Amendment isnt about giving power to the Federal Government. Just like all the other amendments it is about limiting the power of the Federal Government.

"The same threat of a tyranical government exists today."

No rational person believes this.

Really.

You come across as a ******* crackpot every time you spew this ****.
1/31/2013 9:00 PM
It's true.

It annoys the **** out of me that we agree on some things and he spouts that nonsense every other day.   Makes me want to buy some hemp sandals, a knit cap, hang at the coffee shop every day while reading poetry and spout liberal bullshit to anyone who'll listen.
1/31/2013 11:59 PM
Someone asked the meaning of "Militia". They implied that it trumped the right to keep and bear arms.

That is what it meant. It is what it still means.

We have a free society and are probably in no threat to having a dictator.

That is what it meant and means.

And it is about limiting federal power.

All this is true.
of 26
All Forums > General Discussion > Non-Sports > WHEN WILD BOARS ATTACK?

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.