Politics The Joe Biden Thread

it has to be bi partisan for sure!

 

Let the people decide who they want to vote for rather than tell us who we can and can't vote for. Should I ever want to vote for Sly, God forbid, let me.

 

'Sucking Up to Murderers': Biden Plans to Visit Saudi Arabia in Push for Oil

"It makes no sense to strengthen Saudi Arabia's oil dictator in order to stop Russia's oil dictator," said one critic. "The planet is on fire, and Biden is about to reestablish relations with one of the key arsonists."

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2...erers-biden-plans-visit-saudi-arabia-push-oil

Biden is one sick individual...

 

Biden gave a good speech last night.

 

And he doesn't understand that civilians have more rights and fewer responsibilities than military soldiers.

And he doesn't understand the constitution.

As stated in the other thread, at the time the constitution was written (in fact, from the 1600s to 1900s) "well regulated" meant accurate, well functioning, or capable. And "militia" meant civilian infantry.

Once we understand that, it's clear that the intent of the founding fathers was that the government not be allowed to restrict the right of citizens to own and practice with weapons equivalent to standard infantry soldiers.

Regardless of if you agree with their position or not, it is very obvious what that intent was.

 

Nope!
1755 Samuel Johnson Dictionary of the English Language. This is what was used for pretty much every legal writing in that time. Second Amendment was written in 1791.
1- To adjust by Rule
2- To Direct

Seems maybe he does understand the Constitution. You keep throwing out these statements and alternative facts and a simple fact check blows your whole premise up and shows your stance simply doesn't hold water.

By the way Militia by the same dictionary used the Latin term.
MILI'TIA. n.s.

[Latin.]The trainbands; the standing force of a nation.

Once YOU understand that, it will become clear to you that the Founding Fathers meant exactly what they wrote. "Well Regulated" means exactly what it means today.

 

Again with the argumentive "gotcha" stuff you keep complaining about other people doing?

1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."

1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."

1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."

1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."

1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."

1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

 

No argument
Simple facts dude.

 

Well regulated has not changed and is very well established.
No matter how far you want to twist it.

 

Lol... the funny part is people trying to twist:

 

Its a right and privilege to own a firearm.
Its also a choice.

 

Per the constitution, yes. We all are, as Americans.

The constitution (specifically The Bill Of Rigths) doesn't restrict people, it restricts the government in order to protect the rights of the people. So the idea that there would be some restriction in the constitution requiring people to join a government controlled service take some mental gymnastics...

 

Muddy that water a little more. Sure.

This conversation is not about the right to bear arms. It’s about you trying to define “Well Regulated” when you tried to make it out to mean something else due to what the word meant in 1791 when the second amendment was written.
I showed you you were wrong.
On that issue you would have been best served simply say “Oh I got that wrong. You’re right” “ My Bad” but you simply cannot do that so you continue to try to push another narrative.
It’s why you are losing all credibility in this conversation.
I truly have a problem with you losing credibility because a bunch of what you are saying has merit. I want to give you credit for those things but unfortunately the false statements take precedence.