WAKE UP! WE'RE ABOUT TO LOSE AMERICA!

[Reformed1689]

I don't but you want to increase the number of abortions. How do you defend that with scripture?

This should be a suspension worthy comment. @Reynolds has NEVER advocated for more abortions and it is disgusting that you would even suggest that!

 

[Reformed1689]

People hoarding large numbers of firearms an d ammunition to be used against the government is something I thought I would never see in America.

Ever heard of the 2nd Amendment? Do you know what its purpose was?

 

[FollowTheWay]

Ever heard of the 2nd Amendment? Do you know what its purpose was?

Its real purpose was to ensure that the fledgling country which did not have a standing army would be protected by armed militia's.
******************************************************************
Revisiting the Messy Language of the Second Amendment
https://daily.jstor.org/revisiting-messy-language-second-amendment/

The longstanding debate over these words boils down to this: did the founders draft the second amendment as single meaningful text, in which all parts provide meaning in the same context, or is it actually in two puzzlingly separate parts, the first “militia” clause being kind of a blithe hand wave, with the “bear arms” clause being more crucial? Furthermore, if the phrase “bear arms” had a primarily military meaning, this makes a big difference as to whether the second amendment protects the people’s collective right to certain arms, as part of a well-regulated militia, or an individual’s right to have any firearms for no reason at all.
Textualists are all about the text, except, it seems in the 2008 Heller opinion. The decision ultimately decided that only the last clause really mattered, with the first being merely “prefatory, a bit of constitutional throat-clearing”, as it’s been described, that—astonishingly—has no real bearing on the second, more important clause. Nelson Lund, a legal but not linguistic expert, argued that “the Second Amendment has exactly the same meaning that it would have had if the preamble had been omitted, or indeed if the preamble is demonstrably false.” Under this modern reading, it’s curiously the only amendment of its kind written with an unnecessary decorative preamble.

But eighteenth century readers with classical educations under their belts would have been very familiar with Latinate absolute constructions used in long, Ciceronian-style sentences, which in this context crucially seems to provide a causal reason for why such a right is protected, as though it were written “Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” That is, there may be a right to “keep and bear arms”, but that that right exists under certain conditions.

 

[Reformed1689]

Its real purpose was to ensure that the fledgling country which did not have a standing army would be protected by armed militia's.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

 

[Reformed1689]

Its real purpose was to ensure that the fledgling country which did not have a standing army would be protected by armed militia's.

Someone needs a history lesson. Congress Officially Created the U.S. Military We had a standing Army in 1789, the 2nd Amendment didn't pass until 1791.

 

[Reformed1689]

Its real purpose was to ensure that the fledgling country which did not have a standing army would be protected by armed militia's.

Typical liberal. Doesn't know history and thinks everything is racist or bigoted unless it is a liberal doing it.

 

[FollowTheWay]

Someone needs a history lesson. Congress Officially Created the U.S. Military We had a standing Army in 1789, the 2nd Amendment didn't pass until 1791.

History of the United States Army - Wikipedia

When the American Revolutionary War began in April 1775, the colonial revolutionaries did not have an army. Previously, each colony had relied upon the militia, made up of part-time civilian-soldiers. The initial orders from Congress authorized ten companies of riflemen. The first full regiment of Regular Army infantry, the 3rd Infantry Regiment, was not formed until June 1784.[1] After the war, the Continental Army was quickly disbanded because of the American distrust of standing armies, and irregular state militias became the new nation's sole ground army, with the exception of a regiment to guard the Western Frontier and one battery of artillery guarding West Point's arsenal.

 

[FollowTheWay]

Typical liberal. Doesn't know history and thinks everything is racist or bigoted unless it is a liberal doing it.

Typical Republican. Thinks he understands history but really does not.

 

[Reformed1689]

Someone needs a history lesson. Congress Officially Created the U.S. Military We had a standing Army in 1789, the 2nd Amendment didn't pass until 1791.

History of the United States Army - Wikipedia

When the American Revolutionary War began in April 1775, the colonial revolutionaries did not have an army. Previously, each colony had relied upon the militia, made up of part-time civilian-soldiers. The initial orders from Congress authorized ten companies of riflemen. The first full regiment of Regular Army infantry, the 3rd Infantry Regiment, was not formed until June 1784.[1] After the war, the Continental Army was quickly disbanded because of the American distrust of standing armies, and irregular state militias became the new nation's sole ground army, with the exception of a regiment to guard the Western Frontier and one battery of artillery guarding West Point's arsenal.

See my quote above and check your timelines. Surely you know that 1789 is after 1775 and 1791 is after 1789 right?

 

[Reformed1689]

Typical Republican. Thinks he understands history but really does not.

I just owned you on this one with actual dates. You really need to get a grip on reality.

 

[Reynolds]

I don't but you want to increase the number of abortions. How do you defend that with scripture?

I want to outlaw abortions and prosecute them as the premeditated murder that they are. Quit telling bald faced lies about me.

 

[just-want-peace]

I don't but you want to increase the number of abortions. How do you defend that with scripture?

(emphasis obviously mine)
LIES, LIES, LIES

A rational discussion is IMPOSSIBLE with a dedicated liberal who TOTALLY ignores facts but instead relies on rabbit trails, innuendo, and lies about others!!!!

I should think that this repeated lying would be grounds for a ban; but since it IS so obvious maybe not, since he/she is well known by now!?!?!?

 

[Reynolds]

Its real purpose was to ensure that the fledgling country which did not have a standing army would be protected by armed militia's.
******************************************************************
Revisiting the Messy Language of the Second Amendment
https://daily.jstor.org/revisiting-messy-language-second-amendment/

The longstanding debate over these words boils down to this: did the founders draft the second amendment as single meaningful text, in which all parts provide meaning in the same context, or is it actually in two puzzlingly separate parts, the first “militia” clause being kind of a blithe hand wave, with the “bear arms” clause being more crucial? Furthermore, if the phrase “bear arms” had a primarily military meaning, this makes a big difference as to whether the second amendment protects the people’s collective right to certain arms, as part of a well-regulated militia, or an individual’s right to have any firearms for no reason at all.
Textualists are all about the text, except, it seems in the 2008 Heller opinion. The decision ultimately decided that only the last clause really mattered, with the first being merely “prefatory, a bit of constitutional throat-clearing”, as it’s been described, that—astonishingly—has no real bearing on the second, more important clause. Nelson Lund, a legal but not linguistic expert, argued that “the Second Amendment has exactly the same meaning that it would have had if the preamble had been omitted, or indeed if the preamble is demonstrably false.” Under this modern reading, it’s curiously the only amendment of its kind written with an unnecessary decorative preamble.

But eighteenth century readers with classical educations under their belts would have been very familiar with Latinate absolute constructions used in long, Ciceronian-style sentences, which in this context crucially seems to provide a causal reason for why such a right is protected, as though it were written “Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” That is, there may be a right to “keep and bear arms”, but that that right exists under certain conditions.

Who was the "militia" at that time? All able bodied adult males.

What did "well regulated" mean? Well armed with the armament of a regular soldier.

Pretty simple. The adult males are to possess military arms.

 

[Reynolds]

(emphasis obviously mine)
LIES, LIES, LIES

A rational discussion is IMPOSSIBLE with a dedicated liberal who TOTALLY ignores facts but instead relies on rabbit trails, innuendo, and lies about others!!!!

I should think that this repeated lying would be grounds for a ban; but since it IS so obvious maybe not, since he/she is well known by now!?!?!?

It would seem that the repeated false accusations would not be tolerated.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

History of the United States Army - Wikipedia
When the American Revolutionary War began in April 1775, the colonial revolutionaries did not have an army. Previously, each colony had relied upon the militia, made up of part-time civilian-soldiers. The initial orders from Congress authorized ten companies of riflemen. The first full regiment of Regular Army infantry, the 3rd Infantry Regiment, was not formed until June 1784.[1] After the war, the Continental Army was quickly disbanded because of the American distrust of standing armies, and irregular state militias became the new nation's sole ground army, with the exception of a regiment to guard the Western Frontier and one battery of artillery guarding West Point's arsenal.

The fundamental issue and its constitutional solution is highlighted right there in your own post and absolutely refutes your own position, but will you recognize it even when pointed out?

Why would Americans distrust a separate, standing army? Because the government could use that army against them just as the British overlords actually did! Every constitutionally loyal citizen must be allowed to own and maintain even military-grade weapons to ensure the government never becomes tyrannical.

How can you be so blind to your own hypocritical stance in this, claiming, albeit phobically, to fear Trump and insisting there are those ready and willing to stop him from a tyrannical takeover?