Vivek ramaswamy

Ugh.
User avatar
KUTradition
Contributor
Posts: 13898
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2022 8:53 am

Re: Vivek ramaswamy

Post by KUTradition »

and “arms” today are entirely different than those of 1791

keep swinging
Have we fallen into a mesmerized state that makes us accept as inevitable that which is inferior or detrimental, as though having lost the will or the vision to demand that which is good?
User avatar
randylahey
Posts: 8970
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2018 6:13 pm

Re: Vivek ramaswamy

Post by randylahey »

KUTradition wrote: Mon May 01, 2023 3:40 pm and “arms” today are entirely different than those of 1791

keep swinging
Also intentional. The founder fathers understood technology would change. And didn't want citizens to be limited to black powder muskets for all of eternity
User avatar
randylahey
Posts: 8970
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2018 6:13 pm

Re: Vivek ramaswamy

Post by randylahey »

The reason the 2nd amendment was worded the way it was, is to stand the test of time. So american citizens would always have the means to stand up to tyrannical government overreach. That was what they gave their lives to fight against when this country was founded. And tyrannical government overreach is what we deal with today too

Which coincidentally, that tyrannical government is trying to slowly convince you that the 2nd amendment has limits, isn't necessary etc
Sparko
Contributor
Posts: 17332
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2018 8:01 pm

Re: Vivek ramaswamy

Post by Sparko »

It is always the other tyrant.
User avatar
KUTradition
Contributor
Posts: 13898
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2022 8:53 am

Re: Vivek ramaswamy

Post by KUTradition »

it seems more likely that the founding fathers wrote with a certain level of ambiguity so that congress and the SCOTUS could adapt to changing times and changes in societal behavior…

…as has been the case with the rest of the Constitution
Have we fallen into a mesmerized state that makes us accept as inevitable that which is inferior or detrimental, as though having lost the will or the vision to demand that which is good?
jfish26
Contributor
Posts: 18666
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2018 9:41 am

Re: Vivek ramaswamy

Post by jfish26 »

randylahey wrote: Mon May 01, 2023 1:49 pm What percent of America knows or understands this country's constitution is the next necessary statistic
You STILL haven’t told me how the First Amendment applies to Twitter.
jfish26
Contributor
Posts: 18666
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2018 9:41 am

Re: Vivek ramaswamy

Post by jfish26 »

randylahey wrote: Mon May 01, 2023 3:20 pm Individual gun owners are not a militia. Youre stretching that to suit your needs
This is not the own you think it is.
User avatar
randylahey
Posts: 8970
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2018 6:13 pm

Re: Vivek ramaswamy

Post by randylahey »

jfish26 wrote: Mon May 01, 2023 4:15 pm
randylahey wrote: Mon May 01, 2023 3:20 pm Individual gun owners are not a militia. Youre stretching that to suit your needs
This is not the own you think it is.
It was a simple statement. Thats all. The fact you said that.. tells me it was the reality check yall needed
User avatar
randylahey
Posts: 8970
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2018 6:13 pm

Re: Vivek ramaswamy

Post by randylahey »

jfish26 wrote: Mon May 01, 2023 4:14 pm
randylahey wrote: Mon May 01, 2023 1:49 pm What percent of America knows or understands this country's constitution is the next necessary statistic
You STILL haven’t told me how the First Amendment applies to Twitter.
Because the government was involved with what was being censored
jfish26
Contributor
Posts: 18666
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2018 9:41 am

Re: Vivek ramaswamy

Post by jfish26 »

randylahey wrote: Mon May 01, 2023 3:43 pm
KUTradition wrote: Mon May 01, 2023 3:40 pm and “arms” today are entirely different than those of 1791

keep swinging
Also intentional. The founder fathers understood technology would change. And didn't want citizens to be limited to black powder muskets for all of eternity
This also is not the own you think it is. If you’d like to open up the Constitution to be interpreted with the benefit of analysis of the founders’ intent in context (as opposed to the words on the page), you’ll find that many/most of your pet “but the Constitution sez” issues…run into quite a LOT of trouble.
jfish26
Contributor
Posts: 18666
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2018 9:41 am

Re: Vivek ramaswamy

Post by jfish26 »

randylahey wrote: Mon May 01, 2023 4:18 pm
jfish26 wrote: Mon May 01, 2023 4:14 pm
randylahey wrote: Mon May 01, 2023 1:49 pm What percent of America knows or understands this country's constitution is the next necessary statistic
You STILL haven’t told me how the First Amendment applies to Twitter.
Because the government was involved with what was being censored
Lol. Still wrong. Try again.
jfish26
Contributor
Posts: 18666
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2018 9:41 am

Re: Vivek ramaswamy

Post by jfish26 »

randylahey wrote: Mon May 01, 2023 4:18 pm
jfish26 wrote: Mon May 01, 2023 4:15 pm
randylahey wrote: Mon May 01, 2023 3:20 pm Individual gun owners are not a militia. Youre stretching that to suit your needs
This is not the own you think it is.
It was a simple statement. Thats all. The fact you said that.. tells me it was the reality check yall needed
So let’s play the tape forward. Are you saying that the “well-regulated militia” portion of the Second Amendment is irrelevant to the scope of an individual citizen’s rights?
User avatar
randylahey
Posts: 8970
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2018 6:13 pm

Re: Vivek ramaswamy

Post by randylahey »

The founding fathers never intended for the federal government to have a standing army. The idea was citizens could own guns, for their own self defense, that government would be limited. The states would come together, if necessary, against any foreign foe that threatened the states
User avatar
zsn
Contributor
Posts: 3808
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2018 7:39 pm
Location: SF Bay Area

Re: Vivek ramaswamy

Post by zsn »

What makes you think that the Founding Fathers were infallible in regards to keeping and bearing arms? These were the same people who thought only white, rich, men could vote and non-whites weren’t even whole people. So, could they have been equally wrong about the 2nd Amendment?
User avatar
zsn
Contributor
Posts: 3808
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2018 7:39 pm
Location: SF Bay Area

Re: Vivek ramaswamy

Post by zsn »

randylahey wrote: Mon May 01, 2023 4:29 pm The founding fathers never intended for the federal government to have a standing army. The idea was citizens could own guns, for their own self defense, that government would be limited. The states would come together, if necessary, against any foreign foe that threatened the states
In other words, the 2nd Amendment is unnecessary today. Thank you!
User avatar
randylahey
Posts: 8970
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2018 6:13 pm

Re: Vivek ramaswamy

Post by randylahey »

Well regulated militia refers to the armed citizens of a free country. Who all owned guns, not to commit random acts of violence like the fragile mentally broken population we have today, but to defend themselves and their country against enemies foreign or domestic
User avatar
randylahey
Posts: 8970
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2018 6:13 pm

Re: Vivek ramaswamy

Post by randylahey »

zsn wrote: Mon May 01, 2023 4:30 pm
randylahey wrote: Mon May 01, 2023 4:29 pm The founding fathers never intended for the federal government to have a standing army. The idea was citizens could own guns, for their own self defense, that government would be limited. The states would come together, if necessary, against any foreign foe that threatened the states
In other words, the 2nd Amendment is unnecessary today. Thank you!
Absolutely not lol you are even dumber than I thought if that is the conclusion you came to. The 2nd amendment is the most important its been since king George. Our biggest threats to freedom come from our own governing body
User avatar
randylahey
Posts: 8970
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2018 6:13 pm

Re: Vivek ramaswamy

Post by randylahey »

Unfortunately it only took a couple centuries of corrupt power hungry politicians to turn this country into something far more corrupt than what we rebelled against
jfish26
Contributor
Posts: 18666
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2018 9:41 am

Re: Vivek ramaswamy

Post by jfish26 »

randylahey wrote: Mon May 01, 2023 4:31 pm Well regulated militia refers to the armed citizens of a free country. Who all owned guns, not to commit random acts of violence like the fragile mentally broken population we have today, but to defend themselves and their country against enemies foreign or domestic
Are you saying that the “well-regulated militia” portion of the Second Amendment is irrelevant to the scope of an individual citizen’s rights?
User avatar
randylahey
Posts: 8970
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2018 6:13 pm

Re: Vivek ramaswamy

Post by randylahey »

jfish26 wrote: Mon May 01, 2023 4:34 pm
randylahey wrote: Mon May 01, 2023 4:31 pm Well regulated militia refers to the armed citizens of a free country. Who all owned guns, not to commit random acts of violence like the fragile mentally broken population we have today, but to defend themselves and their country against enemies foreign or domestic
Are you saying that the “well-regulated militia” portion of the Second Amendment is irrelevant to the scope of an individual citizen’s rights?
No. An individuals right to bear arms has absolutely nothing to do with a militia. Both are guaranteed rights. Individuals have the right to bear arms without being a part of a militia. And individuals have the right to form well regulated militias
Post Reply