Intellectual Warfare

[Alphatreedog]

So I am often besieged by Leftists claiming both moral and intellectual high ground in all things US form of Gov . From the Constitution , form of government , 2A , 1A etc . Some highlights.
We are a Democracy
We are Democratic Socialists
The 2nd clearly says only the military can have guns .
The Federalists Papers , Common Sense and the writings of the Founders were ; individual opinions , writings of the then oligarchs, written after the signing .
When a States Right issue , " that's the Federal Government's purvey ."
When Federal , " they're interfering with States Rights . "
So I have been reading ,notating and arming myself with the Factual info .
The Federalist Papers
Common Sense
Articles of Confederation
The Constitution
Writings of Thomas Jefferson
" ". Madisob
etc
It is nothing less than shocking the clarity of intent , contextually and conceptually enshrined within . I had previously read a bit and cherry picked excerpts but Holy White Light moment Battman .
So as of late one of my intellectual fencing opponents has been as usual conducting harassment fire. I have been responding with such volume and TOT that I feel remorse for the one sided Intellectual Exanquination .
I also must say I feel a bit of shame for having neglected these writings . Laziness is very much alive and capitalized upon in the Republic .

 

[Hecouldgoalltheway]

The problem is that you're a logical man arguing with emotional jello lumps. They don't care about the facts, they care about how they feel. These morons legitimately connect more with their emotional side than their logical side. It's the divide that creates left and right, but it's also why there can be no consensus. For you, once facts have been brought to bare, the issue is settled. For them, the facts are secondary to how it makes them feel. They don't understand us and we don't understand them.

 

[232593]

we don't understand them.

The only thing we need to understand is that they are subhuman degenerates.

 

[918v]

If the second amendment meant that only the military could have guns then it would be completely unnecessary. Why would the state need an amendment to arm it’s military?

 

[918v]

Maybe that’s why the F4 originally came without a gun, cuz of the second amendment confusion.

 

[Gemsbok]

+1 The Federalist Papers @Alphatreedog

I got challenged at work a few years back with "the Federalist Papers Say ...(liberal stuff about gun ownership)" and I couldn't honestly respond. So I read the one or two that directly address the definition of "militia." They are so logically organized that they are actually pretty easy to read and understand. I highly encourage folks to dig in.

Turns out that knucklehead at work either didn't read the Paper he was quoting (and accusing me of not knowing) or his reading comprehension was severely impaired. I knew he wasn't a complete idiot, so I concluded he was an insincere hypocrite instead.

He got fired before I could discuss it with him.

FP #29 is the one the Hide should know inside and out (especially the guys selling training courses).
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed29.asp

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

So I am often besieged by Leftists claiming both moral and intellectual high ground in all things US form of Gov . From the Constitution , form of government , 2A , 1A etc . Some highlights.
We are a Democracy
We are Democratic Socialists
The 2nd clearly says only the military can have guns .
The Federalists Papers , Common Sense and the writings of the Founders were ; individual opinions , writings of the then oligarchs, written after the signing .
When a States Right issue , " that's the Federal Government's purvey ."
When Federal , " they're interfering with States Rights . "
So I have been reading ,notating and arming myself with the Factual info .
The Federalist Papers
Common Sense
Articles of Confederation
The Constitution
Writings of Thomas Jefferson
" ". Madisob
etc
It is nothing less than shocking the clarity of intent , contextually and conceptually enshrined within . I had previously read a bit and cherry picked excerpts but Holy White Light moment Battman .
So as of late one of my intellectual fencing opponents has been as usual conducting harassment fire. I have been responding with such volume and TOT that I feel remorse for the one sided Intellectual Exanquination .
I also must say I feel a bit of shame for having neglected these writings . Laziness is very much alive and capitalized upon in the Republic .

+1 The Federalist Papers @Alphatreedog

I got challenged at work a few years back with "the Federalist Papers Say ...(liberal stuff about gun ownership)" and I couldn't honestly respond. So I read the one or two that directly address the definition of "militia." They are so logically organized that they are actually pretty easy to read and understand. I highly encourage folks to dig in.

Turns out that knucklehead at work either didn't read the Paper he was quoting (and accusing me of not knowing) or his reading comprehension was severely impaired. I knew he wasn't a complete idiot, so I concluded he was an insincere hypocrite instead.

He got fired before I could discuss it with him.

FP #29 is the one the Hide should know inside and out (especially the guys selling training courses).
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed29.asp

Just remember that a lot of what you are reading predates the Second Amendment.

For example, when you read about Americans being armed in the Federalist papers, you are reading the writings of Federalists urging the nation to adopt the Constitution without any amendments.

They believed in armed Americans and the militia even without a Second Amendment, and they were opposed to a Bill of Rights.

It was the antifederalists that held sway in a few states that were not going to accept the Constitution without a Bill of Rights that finally swayed the Federalists into promising to add a Bill of Rights later if those states would just ratify the Constitution as-is. Trusting souls, I guess, they ratified, and, true to their word, the Federalists amended the Constitution pretty soon thereafter.

But you are rarely reading about the actual Second Amendment. Check the date on whatever you are reading, and just know that if it is the Federalist Papers, it definitely predates the Second Amendment and was written by a person who opposed adding amendments - even though, ironically, it is James Madison (one of the three authors posing as Publius) that proposed the first draft of what became the Second Amendment, although they radically changed it from the way he first wrote it. The language he proposed originally was:

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."

Note the major changes wrought to the proposal Madison drafted.

Most things in history are always more nuanced and involved than the way most folks tell it or believe about what happened.

 

[Sean the Nailer]

The only thing we need to understand is that they are subhuman degenerates.

I believe that the term you are looking for is "untermench".

Don't get me wrong, I'm not exactly arguing with you, but that's it right there.

Now the question remains... how does one get others to understand the concept of:

"I Know What I Don't Know".

While individuals can definitely be educated beyond their intelligence, at the same time stupidity SHOULD be painful. Smart people learn vicariously.

 

[Redlion]

It is not worth your time to try to have reasonable conversations with leftards. It is not possible and only leads to aggravation. Tell them to fuck off and be on your way.

 

[Alphatreedog]

+1 The Federalist Papers @Alphatreedog

I got challenged at work a few years back with "the Federalist Papers Say ...(liberal stuff about gun ownership)" and I couldn't honestly respond. So I read the one or two that directly address the definition of "militia." They are so logically organized that they are actually pretty easy to read and understand. I highly encourage folks to dig in.

Turns out that knucklehead at work either didn't read the Paper he was quoting (and accusing me of not knowing) or his reading comprehension was severely impaired. I knew he wasn't a complete idiot, so I concluded he was an insincere hypocrite instead.

He got fired before I could discuss it with him.

FP #29 is the one the Hide should know inside and out (especially the guys selling training courses).
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed29.asp

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

It is not worth your time to try to have reasonable conversations with leftards. It is not possible and only leads to aggravation. Tell them to fuck off and be on your way.

I disagree. I have changed the minds of those on the left or gotten them to soften their views from calm, logical discussion and a friendly, persuasive tone, especially when it comes to the right to keep and bear arms. A few I have even had trained and owning weapons now.

I think this attitude of Fuck You is one of the things I hate most about living in 2025. It seems to be everybody's mantra these days and explains a lot of what is wrong with society on the right and the left.

The Founding generation endlessly debated these issues in person and in writing, which is the reason we have the Federalist Papers and other founding era quotes.

 

[Alphatreedog]

I found it both surprising and inspiring . In many exerps referring to the 2ND and private gun ownership they are intwined with the resolve that a militia , comprised of all able bodied Free Men , would be needed to ensure Liberty in case of Tyrant or an Army abusing it's power . A necessary standing Army that may need to be dealt with by a citizen militia is a recutting theme .
So much for we shouldn't have Military grade hardware .

 

[Alphatreedog]

It is not worth your time to try to have reasonable conversations with leftards. It is not possible and only leads to aggravation. Tell them to fuck off and be on your way.

Not only are these exchanges necessary it is our duty as citizens of a Free Republic . Further it may inspire the like minded fence sitters to be heard . Also of great note , now that the Department of Education is halted , we need to demand Civics Education be reinstated . Stop fighting them with only GOA etc and at the polls . We need to Liberate our youth and Inner city brethren .

 

[Downtown]

If you really want a deep dive, read the writings of John Locke and Edmund Burke. That's what the men who wrote the Federalist Papers and the Constitution were reading.

 

[joe777]

I've noticed that libs seem to know just about everything about everything. And some folks on the other side too

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

I found it both surprising and inspiring . In many exerps referring to the 2ND and private gun ownership they are intwined with the resolve that a militia , comprised of all able bodied Free Men , would be needed to ensure Liberty in case of Tyrant or an Army abusing it's power . A necessary standing Army that may need to be dealt with by a citizen militia is a recutting theme .
So much for we shouldn't have Military grade hardware .

If you read Miller v. US, you will find the same.

The Supreme Court announced the Second Amendment test, with respect to a weapon and whether it was intended to be included, was "whether this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense."

United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)

United States v. Miller: Only weapons that have a reasonable relationship to the effectiveness of a well-regulated militia under the Second Amendment are free from government regulation.

supreme.justia.com

This is the case from which Scalia got the "common use" test and bastardized everything to make the Second Amendment about a "core right" of self defense.

Read the case (at the link). You will see that common use is not a test at all, but just a historical observation about how early Americans were expected to show up with their privately owned arms of the type in common use at the time.

It would be like saying now militia should show up with privately owned M4 rifles because that is the type of weapon in common use as the infantry rifle.

You always see Miller discussed as a federal case that held that a short barreled shotgun is not protected by the Second Amendment. Nothing of the sort was held in Miller. Read it and see for yourself. The Arkansas judge threw out the indictment on Second Amendment grounds with no evidence - simply dismissed it (the "demurrer" mentioned in the beginning history of the case). The Supreme Court merely held that "in the absence of any evidence" (because not had been submitted below) "It is not within judicial notice" meaning the court is not simply going to recognize this without evidence (that is what judicial notice means). They then set forth the test:

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense.

Now read it and see if I am right or Scalia and all these commentators are right. Link is above. You now have the power to know about this case firsthand instead of being in the dark and relying on others telling you what you should think about it.

 

[Alphatreedog]

If you read Miller v. US, you will find the same.

The Supreme Court announced the Second Amendment test, with respect to a weapon and whether it was intended to be included, was "whether this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense."

United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)

United States v. Miller: Only weapons that have a reasonable relationship to the effectiveness of a well-regulated militia under the Second Amendment are free from government regulation.

supreme.justia.com

This is the case from which Scalia got the "common use" test and bastardized everything to make the Second Amendment about a "core right" of self defense.

Read the case (at the link). You will see that common use is not a test at all, but just a historical observation about how early Americans were expected to show up with their privately owned arms of the type in common use at the time.

It would be like saying now militia should show up with privately owned M4 rifles because that is the type of weapon in common use as the infantry rifle.

You always see Miller discussed as a federal case that held that a short barreled shotgun is not protected by the Second Amendment. Nothing of the sort was held in Miller. Read it and see for yourself. The Arkansas judge threw out the indictment on Second Amendment grounds with no evidence - simply dismissed it (the "demurrer" mentioned in the beginning history of the case). The Supreme Court merely held that "in the absence of any evidence" (because not had been submitted below) "It is not within judicial notice" meaning the court is not simply going to recognize this without evidence (that is what judicial notice means). They then set forth the test:




Now read it and see if I am right or Scalia and all these commentators are right. Link is above. You now have the power to know about this case firsthand instead of being in the dark and relying on others telling you what you should think about it.

Thanks . I wonder if , since this is a gun forum if someone could make a sticky . I would submit that a sticky if exerps and decisions clarifying 2A would be beneficial in both education , respectful debate and dialogue.

 

[Maser]

Here's a novel idea to try. How about when hanging out with your Leftist friends, you only focus on the things you have in common and avoid the things you don't? If you constantly go around looking for the bad in people, you're gonna realize fast that EVERYONE has shitty qualities to them. My Leftist friends and I will never agree on politics, but you get us talking about retro video games or 80s slasher movies, and you'll never get us to shut up.

 

[TheHorta]

Every Lib I’ve taken shooting comes away with a different perspective. They may not go Full 2A, but they have universally come off their hardline anti-2A stance. It’s an interesting transformation that happens right before your eyes. Granted, it has only happened four times in the last 20 years, but still…

 

[theLBC]

you cannot engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed man (or woman).

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

Every Lib I’ve taken shooting comes away with a different perspective. They may not go Full 2A, but they have universally come off their hardline anti-2A stance. It’s an interesting transformation that happens right before your eyes. Granted, it has only happened four times in the last 20 years, but still…

That has been my experience as well.

I took a Chinese man shooting. He loved it, applied for citizenship, and loves America and the Second Amendment. I am not sure he was really a "liberal," but when I met him he had never held a gun in his hand before, and was sort of freaked out that any country would allow such a thing.