Глупый Дерьмо

dat-soldier:

officialunitedstates:

I want to be the first person on the moon to shoot a sniper rifle at earth and hit a wasp nest.  my whole life so far is leading up to that moment

image

image

image

image

image

image

celluloidtoharddrives:

Alien (1979) Directed by Ridley Scott

celluloidtoharddrives:

Alien (1979) Directed by Ridley Scott

reo-swagwagon:

reo-swagwagon:

Is tumblr doing this tiny image stuff for anyone else?


This needs to stop

reo-swagwagon:

reo-swagwagon:

Is tumblr doing this tiny image stuff for anyone else?

image

This needs to stop

beautiful—times:

bearzard:

bearzard:

beautiful—times:

bearzard:

acerspacer:

beautiful—times:

So the bae just pointed out something that I somehow never noticed and that explains a heck of a lot to me about the right to bear arms:

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.

Nowhere…

You seem to have completely ignored the whole part where it says “the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms.” Please look into this subject some more. Time and time again, it has been found that the people are the ones whose right to bear arms shall not be infringed, not the militia. There are also legal precedents that exist as well. It is there, plain as day.

also important of note is that the term “well-regulated” did not mean what it means now. back then it was closer to meaning “well-equipped” 

I’m not sure that’s true? I think people in the late eighteenth century had a concept of order and discipline. I also think that they did actually put effort into drafting the laws of the entire country that they’d just put their lives on the line to create. If they meant well-equipped then the wording would read “well-equipped”. Distorting the meaning of the carefully chosen legislative wording to mean “more guns” with literally no basis isn’t really the kind of coherent argument I was hoping for.

Well, you’re pretty much objectively wrong

http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

Also distorting the meaning of carefully chosen legislative wording to mean “less guns” with literally no basis isn’t the sort of coherent argument I was hoping for.

Which… I didn’t? This literally isn’t even what this argument is about, I don’t know why you keep responding to things that aren’t being said.

In your initial post you specifically said it did not pertain to individuals. In your response to acerspacer you specifically said it only applied during times of emergency. You keep bring up how SPECIFIC and CAREFULLY WORDED the document is, and then from that you make wild assumptions as to what they REALLY meant by drawing random conclusions that are not even hinted at at all in the document

beautiful—times:

bearzard:

bearzard:

beautiful—times:

bearzard:

acerspacer:

beautiful—times:

So the bae just pointed out something that I somehow never noticed and that explains a heck of a lot to me about the right to bear arms:

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.

Nowhere…

You seem to have completely ignored the whole part where it says “the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms.” Please look into this subject some more. Time and time again, it has been found that the people are the ones whose right to bear arms shall not be infringed, not the militia. There are also legal precedents that exist as well. It is there, plain as day.

also important of note is that the term “well-regulated” did not mean what it means now. back then it was closer to meaning “well-equipped” 

I’m not sure that’s true? I think people in the late eighteenth century had a concept of order and discipline. I also think that they did actually put effort into drafting the laws of the entire country that they’d just put their lives on the line to create. If they meant well-equipped then the wording would read “well-equipped”. Distorting the meaning of the carefully chosen legislative wording to mean “more guns” with literally no basis isn’t really the kind of coherent argument I was hoping for.

Well, you’re pretty much objectively wrong

http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

Also distorting the meaning of carefully chosen legislative wording to mean “less guns” with literally no basis isn’t the sort of coherent argument I was hoping for.

Which… I didn’t? This literally isn’t even what this argument is about, I don’t know why you keep responding to things that aren’t being said.

In your initial post you specifically said it did not pertain to individuals. In your response to acerspacer you specifically said it only applied during times of emergency. You keep bring up how SPECIFIC and CAREFULLY WORDED the document is, and then from that you make wild assumptions as to what they REALLY meant by drawing random conclusions that are not even hinted at in the document at all. If you actually look at the structure and the grammar of the law and keep in mind the time it was written, it very clearly says that it is the right of the people of the United States to keep and use arms, and that a well maintained/equipped/trained militia (made up of the people, ie: general populous) is required for the security of the country. It does not say that it’s only required sometimes, or that only certain people may bear arms. If you go look at the wiki article on the second amendment, you will see that literally the second citation is the legal precedent that “the people” refers to individuals. Please do some research before you decide to say dumb things on the Internet.

beautiful—times:

bearzard:

bearzard:

beautiful—times:

bearzard:

acerspacer:

beautiful—times:

So the bae just pointed out something that I somehow never noticed and that explains a heck of a lot to me about the right to bear arms:

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.

Nowhere…

You seem to have completely ignored the whole part where it says “the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms.” Please look into this subject some more. Time and time again, it has been found that the people are the ones whose right to bear arms shall not be infringed, not the militia. There are also legal precedents that exist as well. It is there, plain as day.

also important of note is that the term “well-regulated” did not mean what it means now. back then it was closer to meaning “well-equipped” 

I’m not sure that’s true? I think people in the late eighteenth century had a concept of order and discipline. I also think that they did actually put effort into drafting the laws of the entire country that they’d just put their lives on the line to create. If they meant well-equipped then the wording would read “well-equipped”. Distorting the meaning of the carefully chosen legislative wording to mean “more guns” with literally no basis isn’t really the kind of coherent argument I was hoping for.

Well, you’re pretty much objectively wrong

http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

Also distorting the meaning of carefully chosen legislative wording to mean “less guns” with literally no basis isn’t the sort of coherent argument I was hoping for.

Which… I didn’t? This literally isn’t even what this argument is about, I don’t know why you keep responding to things that aren’t being said.

In your initial post you specifically said it did not pertain to individuals. In your response to acerspacer you specifically said it only applied during times of emergency, and again, that it did not pertain to individuals but instead only to some vague “militia” (who is in this military if not individuals?) you also keep talking about how SPECIFIC and CAREFULLY WORDED the legislation is, and from that you make wild claims about what the authors REALLY meant (things that are not even ALLUDED to). But you are looking at the document through today’s grammar and nomenclature. And when you examine the the grammar and the structure of the amendment, while keeping in mind the time it was written, it clearly says that it is the right of the people of the United States to keep and to use arms, and that a militia, made up of ALL able bodied men, is required for the security of the country. It says nothing more, nothing less.

beautiful—times:

bearzard:

beautiful—times:

bearzard:

acerspacer:

beautiful—times:

So the bae just pointed out something that I somehow never noticed and that explains a heck of a lot to me about the right to bear arms:

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.

Nowhere…

You seem to have completely ignored the whole part where it says “the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms.” Please look into this subject some more. Time and time again, it has been found that the people are the ones whose right to bear arms shall not be infringed, not the militia. There are also legal precedents that exist as well. It is there, plain as day.

also important of note is that the term “well-regulated” did not mean what it means now. back then it was closer to meaning “well-equipped” 

I’m not sure that’s true? I think people in the late eighteenth century had a concept of order and discipline. I also think that they did actually put effort into drafting the laws of the entire country that they’d just put their lives on the line to create. If they meant well-equipped then the wording would read “well-equipped”. Distorting the meaning of the carefully chosen legislative wording to mean “more guns” with literally no basis isn’t really the kind of coherent argument I was hoping for.

Well, you’re pretty much objectively wrong

http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

…right, so I didn’t even remotely suggest that it meant government regulation, and the source you provided clearly states that “well-regulated” means “in proper working order” - which is a synonym for well-ordered and disciplined which is what I said - and not “well-equipped”, which is literally what you said?

Point unclear, got head stuck in washing machine

I wouldn’t consider a militia with inadequate arms to be “in working order”

Please feel free to respond to any of my other points.

redturtlenecksweater:

\
Are these the friends you smoke pot with???
Anonymous

redturtlenecksweater:

eggisi:

thottielamottie:

what the fuck is pot, we are having a bible study

anybody remember this?

I’m writing an essay about Anne Frank and you bring me this trash baby? thottielamottie

Who is that pretty girl on the left

cerebralzero:

Lahti L39 vs Apple
Lahti wins.

cerebralzero:

Lahti L39 vs Apple

Lahti wins.

bearzard:

bearzard:

beautiful—times:

bearzard:

acerspacer:

beautiful—times:

So the bae just pointed out something that I somehow never noticed and that explains a heck of a lot to me about the right to bear arms:

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.

Nowhere…

You seem to have completely ignored the whole part where it says “the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms.” Please look into this subject some more. Time and time again, it has been found that the people are the ones whose right to bear arms shall not be infringed, not the militia. There are also legal precedents that exist as well. It is there, plain as day.

also important of note is that the term “well-regulated” did not mean what it means now. back then it was closer to meaning “well-equipped” 

I’m not sure that’s true? I think people in the late eighteenth century had a concept of order and discipline. I also think that they did actually put effort into drafting the laws of the entire country that they’d just put their lives on the line to create. If they meant well-equipped then the wording would read “well-equipped”. Distorting the meaning of the carefully chosen legislative wording to mean “more guns” with literally no basis isn’t really the kind of coherent argument I was hoping for.

Well, you’re pretty much objectively wrong

http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

Also distorting the meaning of carefully chosen legislative wording to mean “less guns” with literally no basis isn’t the sort of coherent argument I was hoping for.

Your entire argument is interpreting the wording using today’s language and claiming that the people only means a militia which you claim is only allowed to exist during emergencies. Which the document does not in any way say or imply. All it says is that the people, ie: individuals that belong to the United States, are allowed to keep (meaning at all times) and bear (meaning to use) arms and that a well equipped/trained/working militia is necessary to the security of the state. Not just from outside threats, but from inside as well. The document was specifically written to allow the people to protect themselves from threats foreign and domestic, meaning the government. The authors of the Constitution wrote the ENTIRE document that way, not just the second amendment. If you look through it, it is all checks and balances to keep the government from giving itself too much power or abusing it’s citizens. The document does not even allude to limiting what kind of arms, how many, to whom, or when, and as you said yourself, it is a carefully worded legislative document. YOU are the one that is trying to distort it’s meaning to fit your agenda.

bearzard:

beautiful—times:

bearzard:

acerspacer:

beautiful—times:

So the bae just pointed out something that I somehow never noticed and that explains a heck of a lot to me about the right to bear arms:

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.

Nowhere…

You seem to have completely ignored the whole part where it says “the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms.” Please look into this subject some more. Time and time again, it has been found that the people are the ones whose right to bear arms shall not be infringed, not the militia. There are also legal precedents that exist as well. It is there, plain as day.

also important of note is that the term “well-regulated” did not mean what it means now. back then it was closer to meaning “well-equipped” 

I’m not sure that’s true? I think people in the late eighteenth century had a concept of order and discipline. I also think that they did actually put effort into drafting the laws of the entire country that they’d just put their lives on the line to create. If they meant well-equipped then the wording would read “well-equipped”. Distorting the meaning of the carefully chosen legislative wording to mean “more guns” with literally no basis isn’t really the kind of coherent argument I was hoping for.

Well, you’re pretty much objectively wrong

http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

Also distorting the meaning of carefully chosen legislative wording to mean “less guns” with literally no basis isn’t the sort of coherent argument I was hoping for.

militiamedic:

If they can tell you there’s certain things you’re not allowed to say, you don’t have free speech.

If they can tell you there’s only certain places you can protest, only at certain times, and only by special license, you don’t have the freedom to assemble.

If they can tell a…

dethchilada:

bolt-carrier-assembly:

Micro Galil & Gemtech G5

Bruh!

beautiful—times:

bearzard:

acerspacer:

beautiful—times:

So the bae just pointed out something that I somehow never noticed and that explains a heck of a lot to me about the right to bear arms:

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.

Nowhere…

You seem to have completely ignored the whole part where it says “the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms.” Please look into this subject some more. Time and time again, it has been found that the people are the ones whose right to bear arms shall not be infringed, not the militia. There are also legal precedents that exist as well. It is there, plain as day.

also important of note is that the term “well-regulated” did not mean what it means now. back then it was closer to meaning “well-equipped” 

I’m not sure that’s true? I think people in the late eighteenth century had a concept of order and discipline. I also think that they did actually put effort into drafting the laws of the entire country that they’d just put their lives on the line to create. If they meant well-equipped then the wording would read “well-equipped”. Distorting the meaning of the carefully chosen legislative wording to mean “more guns” with literally no basis isn’t really the kind of coherent argument I was hoping for.

Well, you’re pretty much objectively wrong

http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm