Walter E. Williams :lupe:
- Thread starter DEAD7
- Start date
Good sh:t
i'm watch this right here.
"if you read through the stated messages of george mason, thomas jefferson, madison... they say the right to keep and bare arms needs to be protected so that american ppl can protect themselves against the united states congress. it's not to protect us against criminals.. and to go deer and duck hunting. it was to protect ourselves against united states congress."
"i don't believe there's any moral basis for our obeying immoral laws and unconstitutional laws
. however, if you choose to go that route you have to be prepared... 
[for whatever's gonna happen to you.] i think tehy cannot put 100 million ppl in jail. and i think we need to start questioning some of these laws that we just act like sheeple many times... following jsut doing what the govt says."
"i don't believe there's any moral basis for our obeying immoral laws and unconstitutional laws
. however, if you choose to go that route you have to be prepared... [for whatever's gonna happen to you.] i think tehy cannot put 100 million ppl in jail. and i think we need to start questioning some of these laws that we just act like sheeple many times... following jsut doing what the govt says."arms
ärmz/
noun
1. weapons and ammunition; armaments.
The second amendment is too vague and I think there needs to be some consideration on re-wording what exactly arms are, especially in present terms .We can discuss what the "founding" fathers meant but therein lies a difference to what they meant and what was actually written.
If it was intended for all ppl in a general sense why make a mention of "well regulated militia" why not just make the reference to ALL people in general terms.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Unclear?
Vague? "the right of THE PEOPLE" this is unclear to you? Arms = weapons... what exactly is unclear?Without the second, the first and nearly every other right would have been meaningless, as you could not defend them.
Its always perversely entertaining to read right wing hacks quote Wealth of Nations like biblical scriptures, and in the process promote illiteracy on many of his substantive ideas. Smith emphasized the interconnectedness of the economy, and strongly warned against wealth concentration, labor exploitation, information and power asymmetry (naturally benefitting the ruling class), etc....you know all economic impairments that brain dead conservatives love. I oscillate between the ideas that conservatives are either really fukking stupid, or are addicted to endless trolling.
Last edited:
I believe its the cause of the wealth disparity that's in question, not whether or not the gap is desirable... and the exploitation argument is too mind numbing to address.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Unclear?
Without the second, the first and nearly every other right would have been meaningless, as you could not defend them.
What's a well-regulated militia?
What's considered arms?
What would be considered infringing?
The word "militia" has several meanings. It can be a body of citizens (no longer exclusively male) enrolled for military service where full time duty is required only in emergencies. The term also refers to the eligible pool of citizens callable into military service.
Arms = weapons
infringing= To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate
the right of the people(the people) to keep and bear Arms(to have weapons), shall not be infringed(tampered with or violated).
"has several meanings" "can be" those sound like phrases to describe something....vague....
Alright so we are clear on weapons...whether it be an AR-15 or a shoulder fire-missle
If I'm purchasing from an international arms dealer and the government won't let me is that infringing or do I have to already have the weapons in my possession before it's considered infringing?
If the weapons are not stolen, its infringing.
Do you think its an unlimited right? Does any level of govt. have the power/right to make laws regulating ownership of weapons?
Is outlawing the purchase biological weapons considered infringing?