1 minute ago, justrelax said:

Of course what you're quoting here is NOT the second amendment but an interpretation of it but, whatever.

For 221 years, the second amendment was taken to mean what Hamilton laid out in the Federalist Paper No. 29. That changed with District of Columbia V. Heller in 2008, which is where we are today. My view, probably not yours, is that Heller is loaded with unintended consequences, and now the worms are out of that can.

I do urge you to read Federalist 29. You will find much to comfort you in it. There is much Hamilton says that supports your interpretation of the second amendment. Much, but not everything. The purpose is discussed in greater depth and boils down to support of the common defense in lieu of an army.

Y'know, I don't think I've ever covered anything in my history lessons about this, but when did America shift to having a standing army? Was it post Civil War? WW1? 

9 hours ago, NCiggles said:

I mean the people that wrote it didn’t think it could stand by itself. That’s why they wrote the Federalist papers. There’s 85 essays. Then consider the Constitution wasn’t passed without the first 10 Amendments. So it didn’t get ratified without changes. Then less than 15 years after it’s ratification you have the Marbury decision where the Supreme Court made explicit their right of judicial review which they inferred from the Constitution. So I am not sure how you can be so certain as to the meaning when the people that wrote and tons of jurists since have long since looked to sources outside of the text to determine its meaning and application. 

Yup. The constitution is a fluid document and was meant as such, there's no way the founding fathers could have known about all the challenges and changes this country has faced since the constitution was ratified, thus why the founding fathers included amendments.

 

12 minutes ago, TorontoEagle said:

Lol, an old teacher of mine had a quote to deal with racist teenagers in his class..."Stop talking out of your father's mouth". I thought it was great. I think it also applies to a lot of the 2A folks, in terms of being so resistant to change. We can't live in the past, we gotta always be moving forward. We can look at the past to guide our future, but the world is anything but stagnant. 

Move forward! https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1917/06/forward.htm

<sigh>

And the lie detector test determined that was a lie. 

Imagine thinking you can change someone's core beliefs and values by arguing with them on the internet...

2 minutes ago, Bacarty2 said:

He and his brother were handed really poopy deals in the NFL. First was basically ruined by a terrible franchise while Derrek is trying to get ruined by the Raiders. 

They must have a good pissing match at the holidays of who had it worse lol

David Carr I think had it worse, guy was hit and sacked relentlessly, I think he had some talent but after the beating he took in Houston his first couple years he never stopped hearing foot steps.

6 minutes ago, TorontoEagle said:

Y'know, I don't think I've ever covered anything in my history lessons about this, but when did America shift to having a standing army? Was it post Civil War? WW1? 

It's a little furry but the short answer is 1787. All of 700 men! Prior to that, there was a permanent guard of military stores at West Point. It consisted of 80 men. Both of these came into being after the Continental Army, which had fought in the Revolutionary War, was disbanded.

9 hours ago, NCiggles said:

I mean the people that wrote it didn’t think it could stand by itself. That’s why they wrote the Federalist papers. There’s 85 essays. Then consider the Constitution wasn’t passed without the first 10 Amendments. So it didn’t get ratified without changes. Then less than 15 years after it’s ratification you have the Marbury decision where the Supreme Court made explicit their right of judicial review which they inferred from the Constitution. So I am not sure how you can be so certain as to the meaning when the people that wrote and tons of jurists since have long since looked to sources outside of the text to determine its meaning and application. 

Madison, who proposed the Bill of Rights was not suggesting amending the Constitution but rather a bit of a redraft.  It seems lost on some "strict” constitutionalists that the document is fluid and itself replaced a ten year old document, the Articles of Confederation.  Reading the original draft without reading the Federalist Papers is like understanding half of the intent. But reading the Constitution without reading the state constitutions of the time is also a mistake.

 Until the Marbury decision, I doubt many understood that the federal Constitution could be seen to limit what states could make as laws or in the state constitutions on their own. In fact, a federal government holding sway over states contributed a civil war less than seventy years later.  (With all due respect to AFan, the Civil War was also about states’ rights, primarily a state’s right to allow slavery and to enforce what was perceived as a property right irrespective of a federal mandate otherwise.  He is right when he says it was about slavery but mistaken when he says it was not about states rights, they are interwoven in the southern body politic of the pre civil war.)

2 minutes ago, Westbrook#36 said:

Imagine thinking you can change someone's core beliefs and values by arguing with them on the internet...

Sadly, it works. It's especially effective when certain censorship rules are in place.

4 minutes ago, Westbrook#36 said:

Imagine thinking you can change someone's core beliefs and values by arguing with them on the internet...

I have on occasion been dissuaded from my opinions. Core values, no, but insights and understandings, yes. 

8 hours ago, TorontoEagle said:

But times have changed. There isn't colonization anymore, and the threat of a foreign army invading is basically nil. Again, with the standing army the US has, nobody is invading the States. If the government decides to use the army (which, I'm pretty sure the army is sworn to protect the constitution, not the government in power) then citizens won't match the firepower. They just won't and can't. 

I don't want to take guns away from hunters or anything of the sort. I think if you're concerned with self-defense, a handgun is just fine. You should have to get licensed, and there should be strict laws about how/when/where you can actually use the gun. Every other civilized nation has figured out methods of some gun control, because allowing it to go unchecked results in the mass shootings we've seen become commonplace in the States. The unfettered access to guns, combined with insanely poor mental health supports, equals big problems. 

What common person needs the assault rifles, with bump stocks? What use do you have for that at all? Hunters/farmers/rural folk using rifles, shotguns etc is fine, but those too should be licensed.

Times have changed. Invasion has changed. Enemies now attack this nation with propaganda designed to divide from within, promoting wokeism and other nonsense, helping place leaders in politics that hate everything about the USA, its capitalism, freedom, and democracy. 

5 minutes ago, Westbrook#36 said:

Imagine thinking you can change someone's core beliefs and values by arguing with them on the internet...

Imagine having a discussion, on a discussion board...

10 hours ago, LeanMeanGM said:

So what about the Chiefs. Chiefs immediately scored after that then scored again. It’s garbage time from then on when Eagles scored again. When they has the ball and we’re down by 12 they turned it over on downs after 8 plays.
 

And uhhh if they scored to make it a 6 point game with 4 minutes left that means at some point they only scored 3 with less than 5 to go. 

 

You act like the Eagles had a large number of drives in the 4th quarter of the Chiefs game.  They had 3 drives and scored touchdowns on 2 of them.  The first of those 2 TDs made it a 5 point game with just under 13 minutes left in the game.  We lost a shootout game against one of the all time great QBs/offenses.  It happens but it isn't like the Eagles went down 5 scores in that game and then only scored points after that. They kept pace with them for most of that game. 

 

As for the 49ers game I have no clue what you continue to talk about with your claim that the Eagles only scored 3 points with 5 minutes or less in the game.  The Eagles only scored once in the 4th quarter of that game.  It was a TD with 4:02 left in the game.  They also converted the 2 point conversion after that TD to make it a 6 point game with 4 minutes left.  The defense wasn't able to get a stop and the Eagles offense didn't touch the ball again after that TD. 

20 minutes ago, justrelax said:

Of course what you're quoting here is NOT the second amendment but an interpretation of it but, whatever.

For 221 years, the second amendment was taken to mean what Hamilton laid out in the Federalist Paper No. 29. That changed with District of Columbia V. Heller in 2008, which is where we are today. My view, probably not yours, is that Heller is loaded with unintended consequences, and now the worms are out of that can.

I do urge you to read Federalist 29. You will find much to comfort you in it. There is much Hamilton says that supports your interpretation of the second amendment. Much, but not everything. The purpose is discussed in greater depth and boils down to support of the common defense in lieu of an army. https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-04-02-0186

I have read the federalist papers years ago. 

Again, they are not the law. 

The law is the constitution itself. The words are very clear. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. It does not refer to an adendum, or add any caveats. 

 

4 minutes ago, Bacarty2 said:

that game was never close. whenever the eagles did make it within one score the chiefs drove down and scored immediately. 

In the beginning of the 2nd the chiefs took the lead, almost immediately made it 2 scores and never looked back 

And as we've seen thats an average Chiefs team with a TERRIBLE defense

 

I get it but that doesn't mean it was garbage time stats. We may have never had that real of a chance to win the game because besides one turnover the Chiefs scored a TD in every drive but the Eagles were at least making it competitive for most of that game until they weren't able to keep up anymore over the course of the 4th quarter.

1 minute ago, Bacarty2 said:

I find this funny coming from a Canadian because the only reason your safe, and still somewhat free is because America lets you. 

I'd like to also quote something I heard from my youth, "dont bit the hand that feeds you"

What 'freedoms' don't we have? 

We consider Americans our friends, and the world's longest undefended border supports most Americans likely feel the same way. 

Sure, I guess you could turn your guns on your biggest trade partner, but that would create an international incident, considering the many other friends we have around the world. They may not be able to stop an aggressive American invasion, but it's such a ridiculous scenario it's not even worth discussing. 

We aren't a perfect country by any measure, and I'm open to discuss anything you'd like about Canada.

1 hour ago, justrelax said:

What you are saying, as you eschew the Federalist Papers, is that you understand the meaning and purpose of the Constitution better than those who wrote it.

No - what I am saying is some of those who wrote the Constitution (primarily Hamilton) also wrote the majority of the Federailst papers in order to gain favor and influence the vote to ratify. The Federalist papers are NOT THE LAW. The constitution is. No where does the Constitution refer to the Fed Papers, nor anywhere else for interpretation. The law is short and concise in regards to 2A. "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"  Ther are zero caveats following or prior to. 

Everyone else is making a political argument. I am standing behind the Constitution and it's contents in totality. 

11 minutes ago, justrelax said:

It's a little furry but the short answer is 1787. All of 700 men! Prior to that, there was a permanent guard of military stores at West Point. It consisted of 80 men. Both of these came into being after the Continental Army, which had fought in the Revolutionary War, was disbanded.

Yes, but the reality is that the army shrank considerably after the Revolutionary War. Many don’t realize how much of the Revolutionary War was served by militia not standing Continental Army.  The use of militia like groups continued into the Civil War and even into the War to End All Wars (WWI), when modern warfare decimated some communities and the modern army was begun.

43 minutes ago, TorontoEagle said:

But times have changed. There isn't colonization anymore, and the threat of a foreign army invading is basically nil. Again, with the standing army the US has, nobody is invading the States. If the government decides to use the army (which, I'm pretty sure the army is sworn to protect the constitution, not the government in power) then citizens won't match the firepower. They just won't and can't. 

I don't want to take guns away from hunters or anything of the sort. I think if you're concerned with self-defense, a handgun is just fine. You should have to get licensed, and there should be strict laws about how/when/where you can actually use the gun. Every other civilized nation has figured out methods of some gun control, because allowing it to go unchecked results in the mass shootings we've seen become commonplace in the States. The unfettered access to guns, combined with insanely poor mental health supports, equals big problems. 

What common person needs the assault rifles, with bump stocks? What use do you have for that at all? Hunters/farmers/rural folk using rifles, shotguns etc is fine, but those too should be licensed.

Common argument- times are different. Yes things progress. But this is a ridiculous discussion. 

I have laid out why the citizens right to bear arms was and still is a need.

What happens when/if our monetary system collapses?  What happens if our Government can no longer pay the military?  While these things are not very likely, they are possible, given how we print money. And the very unlikely event our Government would become tyrannical?  (not completely far fecthed since we have already elected some who are trying to push an authoratarian style of government. )

 

I stand behind my freedoms.

 

Funny thing is while I own 2 guns, (a shot gun that was a gift from my mother when I was 12, and my dads revolver I inherited) I am not a  collector, I dont conceal carry, I dont hunt, I have rarely gone to a range and or shot skeet. But I am a STAUNCH supporter of 2A. 

 

 

 

we will all agree to disagree. I am done with this back and forth. we are getting no where. 

The constitution is the law, and it is clear. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

1 minute ago, Bacarty2 said:

You are who you are because of us. 

And yes, if we wanted Canada we'd have it(no one would probably care or say a peep). 

Like I said, outrageous to think about(never will happen) but again, weird watching someone bag on America who should be extremely grateful 

WOW. This might be the dumbest post you've ever made, and that's saying A LOT. 

13 minutes ago, Ipiggles said:

I have read the federalist papers years ago. 

Again, they are not the law. 

The law is the constitution itself. The words are very clear. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. It does not refer to an adendum, or add any caveats. 

 

You persist in ignoring the purpose of the 2nd amendment, which is clearly stated therein. I do not argue with you about what you quote so persistently. I just wish you would acknowledge that there is more to the 2nd amendment than you, um, acknowledge.

Do the Eagles have a realistic shot at trading for Wilson from a cap perspective next season?

1 minute ago, justrelax said:

You persist in ignoring the purpose of the 2nd amendment, which is clearly stated therein. I do not argue with you about what you quote so persistently. I just wish you would acknowledge that there is more to the 2nd amendment than you, um, acknowledge.

I acknowledge that the 2a was 2 parts. The Militia, being well regulated and the 2nd part being that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. That is the law. 

12 minutes ago, BigEFly said:

Yes, but the reality is that the army shrank considerably after the Revolutionary War. Many don’t realize how much of the Revolutionary War was served by militia not standing Continental Army.  The use of militia like groups continued into the Civil War and even into the War to End All Wars (WWI), when modern warfare decimated some communities and the modern army was begun.

No argument from me, which was why I said it was furry. After the Revolutionary War the army shrank to 80 men - the guard of military stores at West Point. It's a stretch to call it an army at all but it was a national entity rather than a state militia, which is why I count it.

8 minutes ago, Ipiggles said:

I have read the federalist papers years ago. 

Again, they are not the law. 

The law is the constitution itself. The words are very clear. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. It does not refer to an adendum, or add any caveats. 

 

To interpret the law, courts often times go to the legislative record.  Courts have gone to the Federalist Papers to interpret the Constitution.  The words "shall not be infringed” do not stand on their own.   That is not the entire sentence that makes up the Second Amendment.   I would argue that grammatically to consider only that sentence, one would arrive at a much narrower interpretation of the right than is proscribed in the Federalist Paper for which JR provided a link.  I would also argue that without reading the versions of the right to bear arms in the state constitutions of the time, I provided that from our Commonwealth, and without reading the writings of those involved in drafting those constitutions, you lose the breadth of interpretation that espouses more closely to your sought after interpretation.  I would argue that Heller is tortured reading to result in an intent more closely aligned with the writings of the time.