Clinging to Guns and Religion

Pio1980 · #1 03-09-2018, 11:06 AM

JJ, can you tell me specifically, what "rights" you believe the 2nd amendment, as written in full, grants individuals minus the militia connection?

nailer · #2 03-20-2018, 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pio1980

JJ, can you tell me specifically, what "rights" you believe the 2nd amendment, as written in full, grants individuals minus the militia connection?

Since he doesn't appear to know, I'll tell you again. Self defense and being able to fight a tyrant who is taking over our nation, which Trump clearly isn't. These two rights remain until the Supremes sing otherwise.

Pio1980 · #3 03-20-2018, 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nailer

Since he doesn't appear to know, I'll tell you again. Self defense and being able to fight a tyrant who is taking over our nation, which Trump clearly isn't. These two rights remain until the Supremes sing otherwise.

Scalia iirc said, the 2nd permits home defense with a handgun. Nothing else, afaik.

The tyranny bit is a false assumption, absent from the Second in word and intent. Armed insurrection against Federal authority is not a Constitunally granted protected right.

Trump is at least a would be tyrant as POTUS by demeanor.
His removal would be arguably justifiable by any rational judgement of ethical behavior.

nailer · #4 03-20-2018, 12:01 PM

The tyranny bit isn't a false assumption and having the means at hand to fight a tyrant who has usurped Federal authority is why it's part of the second.

Would be doesn't matter, but is does. If we are ever in actual danger of being under a tyrant's boot, firearms would be an excellent tool in defending our homes. Pretty sure Scalia would concur.

Pio1980 · #5 03-20-2018, 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nailer

The tyranny bit isn't a false assumption and having the means at hand to fight a tyrant who has usurped Federal authority is why it's part of the second.

Would be doesn't matter, but is does. If we are ever in actual danger of being under a tyrant's boot, firearms would be an excellent tool in defending our homes. Pretty sure Scalia would concur.

If that was the intent, it would have been part of the wording. It's just not there.

nailer · #6 03-20-2018, 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pio1980

If that was the intent, it would have been part of the wording. It's just not there.

In other words, you don't believe we have the right to own arms. I know we do because the intent of the second goes beyond the need to arm a militia.

Pio1980 · #7 03-20-2018, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nailer

In other words, you don't believe we have the right to own arms. I know we do because the intent of the second goes beyond the need to arm a militia.

Potentially, everyone does under the second, including the village idiot and the county homicidal maniac by assumption.

JJIII · #8 03-20-2018, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nailer

Since he doesn't appear to know, I'll tell you again. Self defense and being able to fight a tyrant who is taking over our nation, which Trump clearly isn't. These two rights remain until the Supremes sing otherwise.

Wrong.

nailer · #9 03-20-2018, 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JJIII

Wrong.

Pray tell us then. Or are you saying you actually don't know as oppossed to appearing not to?