Police Admit That Armored Vehicles Are for Fighting “Constitutionalists” With Guns

a reply to: Logarock

The well regulated part has only to do with the militia and it simply addresses that a group of folks that take up arms cant act like a mob. It has nothing to do with the right to keep and bear arms.

The Founders were unequivocally clear on what a "militia" is:

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." ~ George Mason, 1788

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." ~ Richard Henry Lee, 1788

"The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun." ~ Patrick Henry



And in the 18th century English "regulated" meant "well trained/equipped/supplied", NOT "lots of laws/regulations".

a reply to: NOTurTypical

Well, every one except the people owned by other people...

But they also put that all men were created equal so.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

Damn you facts for getting in the way.

reply to: Sremmos80

The Constitution is a living document and should be seen as that because we would still have legal slaves in the states still and women as 2nd class citizens if it wasn't.

Oh and fun fact. As many blacks owned slaves as whites did and not all slaves where black alot of Irish were slaves also..
History is an awesome thing if you learn it right.

a reply to: ThichHeaded

Oh and fun fact. As many blacks owned slaves as whites did and not all slaves where black alot of Irish were slaves also..
History is an awesome thing if you learn it right.

Does that change that they were not allowed to own guns while the people that get quoted are saying all men should have them?

originally posted by: Sremmos80
Does that change that they were not allowed to own guns while the people that get quoted are saying all men should have them?

Did you miss this part of my post?

originally posted by: ThichHeaded
The Constitution is a living document and should be seen as that because we would still have legal slaves in the states still and women as 2nd class citizens if it wasn't.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: NOTurTypical

Well, every one except the people owned by other people...

But they also put that all men were created equal so.

That's why the NRA was created, to arm and train newly freed slaves.

a reply to: ThichHeaded

The Constitution is a living document and should be seen as that because we would still have legal slaves in the states still and women as 2nd class citizens if it wasn't.

It isn't a "living document", it has within it's text the provision for it to be amended by majority vote and ratification by 2/3s of the States. Slavery was abolished and women were granted suffrage because of the amendment process, not because it was interpreted differently at a later date and time.

And thanks for supporting my post about the 2nd, I appreciate that. :-)

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: ThichHeaded

Oh and fun fact. As many blacks owned slaves as whites did and not all slaves where black alot of Irish were slaves also..
History is an awesome thing if you learn it right.

Does that change that they were not allowed to own guns while the people that get quoted are saying all men should have them?

Doesn't change the text of the 2nd. Or their statements defining what a militia consists of.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

Lol ya the nra was all about helping the freed slaves.
Must be why they were creates shortly after the kkk was disbanded but I digress

All I'm saying is if we are going to champion these men of those days for saying what they said let's get the context right.
They did not want all men to have guns, and that is not what they are saying when people post those quotes.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

But the text of the second can't mean that they want all men to be armed cause when it was written that was not the case! !

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: NOTurTypical

Lol ya the nra was all about helping the freed slaves.
Must be why they were creates shortly after the kkk was disbanded but I digress

All I'm saying is if we are going to champion these men of those days for saying what they said let's get the context right.
They did not want all men to have guns, and that is not what they are saying when people post those quotes.

I don't know what you're talking about, the NRA was founded right after the Civil War. And was created to arm and train freed slaves.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: NOTurTypical

But the text of the second can't mean that they want all men to be armed cause when it was written that was not the case! !

Well we don't want all men to own them either, mentally insane and violent felons shouldn't own them. But you are kinda trying to argue a red herring. The quotes were posted to refute the false claim that a "militia" is just a small group who are paramilitary. Nope, the co-author of the 2nd clearly defines who the militia is... the people.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

Source of that claim would be great.
This one disagrees with you
www.politifact.com...

Still, the point of what I am saying is that if you are going to quote men that say that all men need to have weapons and that shall not be infringed, lets not forget that those very same people allowed some men to not have weapons.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: NOTurTypical

Source of that claim would be great.
This one disagrees with you
www.politifact.com...

Fact Check Bias

Still, the point of what I am saying is that if you are going to quote men that say that all men need to have weapons and that shall not be infringed, lets not forget that those very same people allowed some men to not have weapons.

No, those would be individual states who made it illegal. Same thing states are trying to do today despite the Heller verdict of the US Supreme Court.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

So that is a no on the source then?
Or is your source about a guy that doesn't like obama suppose to mean something?
Care you say why the source I gave is wrong or something other then "people don't like republicans so they are lying"

It doesn't matter if it was the states that did it, those people you quoted are still being taken out of context when they say that all men should have guns. Just like the people that do it today and then say that we need to restrict some but not others.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: NOTurTypical

Source of that claim would be great.
This one disagrees with you
www.politifact.com...

Still, the point of what I am saying is that if you are going to quote men that say that all men need to have weapons and that shall not be infringed, lets not forget that those very same people allowed some men to not have weapons.

The realities of the situation then was that there would not have been a United States of America if freedom of the slaves was included at that time and you know that.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: NOTurTypical

Source of that claim would be great.
This one disagrees with you
www.politifact.com...

Still, the point of what I am saying is that if you are going to quote men that say that all men need to have weapons and that shall not be infringed, lets not forget that those very same people allowed some men to not have weapons.

The realities of the situation then was that there would not have been a United States of America if freedom of the slaves was included at that time and you know that.

a reply to: Sunwolf

Really?
So slaves were essential to the creation of what we have today?!

I mean I some what agree but not in positive way.

I don't know that, no one does. Who knows what would of happened if we treated people like people not property when they started this country.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Sunwolf

Really?
So slaves were essential to the creation of what we have today?!

I mean I some what agree but not in positive way.

I don't know that, no one does. Who knows what would of happened if we treated people like people not property when they started this country.

Half of the States would not have agreed to a Union if it involved freeing the slaves,stop being obtuse.

a reply to: Sunwolf

.... Or the slave issue couldn't have been there in the first place.
Yes that is the way it turned out but it does not mean we could not have got to where we are now without slaves.

I am not going to agree that we are better off since we had slaves back then, no way.