By Wendy Gittleson Guns, Racism, Weird NewsSeptember 27, 2015

Ammosexual Racist Shoots Self In Penis — Blames Black Guy

If racist ammosexuals aren’t careful, one of these days, they’re going to end up making themselves look bad. Well, I guess it’s too late. A convicted white felon in South Dakota found himself in more than a little hot water after trying to buy a gun.

43-year-old Donald Anthony Watson (why do they always have three names?) put a gun in his pocket early in the morning on September 6th. It discharged and hit him in one of the worst places possible. He was admitted to the emergency room shortly after the incident happened.

When police arrived to question him, he lied and blamed it on “a black guy who tried to rob him,” outside of his apartment building. The only problem? There was no black guy or attempted robbery and there was no evidence nor were there any witnesses to corroborate his story. There were witnesses, though, who heard screams coming from his apartment at the time of the shooting.

After police searched his home, however, they found bullet fragments on his bed (your guess is as good as mine as to why he had a gun near his penis while lying in bed) and they found an empty gun case, but no gun.

The officers confronted Watson and once again asked him how he was shot and he admitted that he put it in his pocket and that’s when the gun discharged (uh huh). He still hasn’t told the cops where he hid the gun, but he says he was just looking at it with the intention of buying (again, uh huh).

In South Dakota, it’s illegal for a felon to possess a firearm and he is currently being charged with that and with filing a false report of a crime and a false report of information to law enforcement.

Featured image via Flickr

Bio
Latest Posts

Wendy Gittleson

Wendy is one of the luckiest people on the planet. She actually gets to make a living out of two of her greatest passions, writing and politics. When she's not writing, she's hiking with her dogs, riding her bike or cooking a great meal with her friends or loved one. Follow Wendy on Facebook, Twitter or Google Plus or on Free to be liberal.

Latest Posts By Wendy Gittleson

Rick Derris

The founders wanted a well regulated militia. They were scared of an untrained, armed populace.
- http://religionandpolitics.org/ religion&politics
  
  Uh huh:
  
  “I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.”
  — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
  
  “Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American…[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”
  -Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788
  - Rick Derris
    
    Yeah, both of those quotes are in reference to the militia.
    
    If you kept reading Coxe instead of pulling out random quotes from a gun nut website, you’d find that Coxe not only wanted a well-regulated militia, the idea of an untrained, armed populace was something he was very afraid of.
    - http://religionandpolitics.org/ religion&politics
      
      That’s a nice try there Ricky, but no cigar. Not even close. Your argument always seems to center around the fact that you believe the average citizen does not have the right to individual armed self defense, despite clear evidence from the founders that the word “militia” referred to the people at large.
      
      Joseph Story is not one of the founders you buffoon. He was a supreme court justice whose writing you cite come from an 1833 “Commentaries on the Constitution.” Worse yet, you leave out the parts of his writing that clearly show he knew the 2A was an individual right:
      
      The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.
      
      You’re out of your depth here Ricky, you should quit while you’re ahead.
      - Rick Derris
        
        So I’m guessing you didn’t read The Militia Act of 1792. Lol.
        
        Let me explain it to you again as you didn’t get it the first time
        
        The militia was required to be made up of every able-bodied white man from 18-44. They would meet regularly, similar to what our reserve components do today. As part of being in the militia, you were required to own a musket.
        
        I got the quote from Storey after a guy like you posted the first half of the quote, just like you did. Yet you proved yourself wrong before you even posted your comment because the whole context is speaking about the importance of a well regulated militia, and the dangers of an armed, untrained populace.
        
        There isn’t a single statement made by the founders about the Second Amendment that wasn’t about the militia. You’re welcome to try and find one, though. It’s always fun looking up the full context of the quote and finding that you’re full of it once again. You aren’t the first person who tried this on me.
      - http://religionandpolitics.org/ religion&politics
        
        And you’re not the first libturd to pretend like you understand the Bill of Rights. Funny how each and every other item on that list (1) applies to individuals, and (2) restricts the power of government over individual citizens, yet for some unknown reason, you libturds try and claim that the second item on that list, and ONLY the second item, does not apply to individuals, despite clear evidence that the word “militia” was used in the 1700s to refer to individual citizens, yes, white men, as neither women or minorities were considered full citizens at that time.
        
        Oh, and the Supreme Court disagrees with you, sorry.
      - Rick Derris
        
        Yes, yes. I’ve heard this argument before.
        
        Except the Tenth Amendment also applies to the states as well, and saying, “But but but…all the other Amendments!” doesn’t mean a thing, because without evidence, the fact that the Second Amendment applied to state militias and not to individual gun nuts who pretend they’re going to blow up the White House any day now.
        
        You’ve not only shown that you don’t know the Bill of Rights, as you claimed the Tenth Amendment didn’t apply to the states, but you have no evidence to back up your assertions.
        
        And then you played the SCOTUS card, which is funny, because:
        
        A) You’re now claiming that SCOTUS could never be wrong (I guess you support Roe v. Wade, huh?)
        
        B) Every case involving gun control before Heller sided on gun control.
        
        So since your arguments are completely unoriginal, let me tell you what you’re going to do next.
        
        1. You’re going to bring up Dred Scott, which doesn’t work because not only was Dred Scott decided long after the founders were dead, but nothing in the opinion given changed the state of gun laws at the time, which varied by local and state jurisdiction.
        
        2. You’re going to continue to try to dig up some more old quotes. All of them related to the militia and not to ownership of firearms for private use.
        
        3. You’re going to lose your temper and call names. Boo hoo.
        
        4. You’re going to start talking about the “unorganized militia”, which is a concept that didn’t exist in colonial law, and only existed in law during the 20th century, making that argument invalid as well.
        
        5. You’re then going to claim I want to take all guns. It’s a stupid, and false ad-hominem attack. I own guns and like them. I also think use of them ahould be regulated, just like the current SCOTUS still says they do.
        
        Go ahead, R&P. Surprise me with an argument that hasn’t been used a million times before, and that I haven’t swatted down with verifiable facts.
        
        You’re right that I’m ahead. As for quitting, you replied to me, troll.
      - http://religionandpolitics.org/ religion&politics
        
        The Tenth Amendment applies to individuals AND to the states, yes. This doesn’t change or invalidate my argument in any way.
        
        Can you explain WHY the 2A would not apply to individuals when all the others do? Why would the 2A NOT seek to limit the power of government over individual citizens when all the others do? Sorry, but your silly little cop-out isn’t working. There most certainly IS evidence to support my claim, and it’s of far better quality than yours. Just because you don’t like the evidence doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. You can’t simply ignore it away. And you can keep your straw man arguments, I won’t dignify them with a response.
        
        You have “swatted down” nothing at all, and have only succeed in ignoring my question, as usual. Why is it that I can never get an answer out of you gun grabbers on this question?
      - Rick Derris
        
        “The Tenth Amendment applies to individuals AND to the states, yes. This doesn’t change or invalidate my argument in any way.”
        
        Actually, it does, because you were wrong. As anyone who actually took a polisci course in college can tell you, the Tenth Amendment was made to put in writing that states has the authority to make their own laws.
        
        “There most certainly IS evidence to support my claim”
        
        Yet you provided none.
        
        As for your question, I don’t have an an answer, but it doesn’t matter. Not having a reason why this Amendment in particular allowed for states to have their own militias but didn’t apply to individual gun ownership for personal use means nothing. Your question is the equivalent of claiming that Dumbledore didn’t die in one of the Harry Potter books, because he wasn’t killed in any of the others. It’s a stupid question.
        
        As of yet, you have provided no proof of your claims that the Second Amendment was intended to apply to anyone but militias. Until you can provide evidence of such, you are simply wrong.
      - http://religionandpolitics.org/ religion&politics
        
        I didn’t think you had an answer, at least you have the courage to admit it. It’s not a stupid question at all, the much more “stupid” assertion is the supposed “fact” that the 2A does not restrain the government from placing infringements on the rights of individual citizens. You have provided no proof that the 2A was only meant to apply to militias, despite your bloviating. Were your interpretation correct, I can’t understand for the life of me why the phrase “The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” would have been used, if the militia were not the people.
        
        Perhaps you didn’t read what I wrote, so let me remind you:
        
        You cited the Milita Act of 1792, to which I responded that “we have clear evidence that the word “militia” was used in the 1700s to refer to individual citizens, yes, white men, as neither women or minorities were considered full citizens at that time”
        
        ALL “citizens” were required to be part of the militia at that time, and the 2A clearly applied to them. The militia and the people were almost one in the same.
      - Rick Derris
        
        You only quoted half of the Second Amendment, and that was your proof?
        
        Lol! Did you forget the first half?
        
        You still haven’t provided any evidence of your claim that the Second Amendment was meant for anything other than to allow states to have militias.
        
        Do you have any notes or laws made by the founders that says otherwise? Of course not.
        
        You still have no evidence of your claim that the Second Amendment applies to private ownership of weapons for personal use only.
        
        Just claiming you’re right doesn’t make it so.
      - http://religionandpolitics.org/ religion&politics
        
        Still ignoring the question I see. Your interpretation makes far less sense than mine. You have no real “proof” of your claim any more than I do. What I do have is a series of 21st Century SCOTUS rulings. Sorry, but you grabbers have lost this one big time, just like conservatives lost the gay marriage fight. You win some, you lose some.
        
        Funny how you accuse me of ignoring the first half of the 2A, yet you always ignore the second. Worse, you completely ignore the fact that the “people” and the “militia” were one in the same at that time, which brings my statement fully into context. Why are you ignoring this part?
      - Rick Derris
        
        You still haven’t provided any evidence of your claims.
        
        I already addressed the SCOTUS argument. A 21st century ruling means nothing.
        
        What was the job of the militia?
      - http://religionandpolitics.org/ religion&politics
        
        yawn
      - Rick Derris
        
        Brave R&P ran away!
        Bravely ran away away!
        When logic reared its ugly head
        He quickly turned tail and fled
        Yes, brave R&P turned about
        He gallantly chickened out
        
        Bravely taking to his feet
        He beat a very brave retreat
        Oh bravest of the brave, R&P!
      - http://religionandpolitics.org/ religion&politics
        
        oh stfu doofus. Even IF I actually had time, you’re impossible to conduct an honest debate with, because you only hear what you want to hear, and you apparently can’t read plain English. Oh, and the Heller ruling didn’t “overturn hundreds of years of precedent,” it simply finally tackled the question of individual vs collective rights directly, which had never been directly addressed before. Them be the facts buddy, all your bloviating aside.
      - Rick Derris
        
        Making one statement without evidence, and writing an entire paragraph telling me that you can’t refute anything I said. Fantastic!
      - http://religionandpolitics.org/ religion&politics
        
        yawn. Where is your evidence that Heller supposedly “undid hundreds of years of Supreme Court precedent”??
        
        Mr Pot, meet Kettle.
      - Rick Derris
        
        State cases are irrelevant. Many state constitutions (including mine) have an expanded version of the Second Amendment to apply to personal use. Every SCOTUS case dealing with gun ownership ruled in favor of gun control, and it doesn’t really matter since I’ve already proven that the Second Amendment was regarding militas only. If SCOTUS wants to reinterpret the Amendment, that’s on them.
      - http://religionandpolitics.org/ religion&politics
        
        You’ve “proven” nothing except in your own little mind, especially in light of a great deal of convincing evidence out there that the word “militia” referred to individuals.
        
        Every SCOTUS case did NOT “rule in favor of gun control,” not by a long shot. The SCOTUS has only directly interpreted the 2A five times since its passing into the highest law of the land:
        
        1. The United States v. Cruikshank (1875) ruled that the application of the First and Second Amendment “have no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government.” This is in no way siding with gun control, this is simply pointing out that the 2A restricts the power of the federal government
        
        2. Presser v. Illinois (1886) ruled that although individuals have the right to keep and bear arms, a state law prohibiting common citizens from forming personal military organizations is still constitutional because prohibiting such personal military formations and parades does not limit a personal right to keep and bear arms. Again, not a pro-gun control ruling by any stretch of the imagination.
        
        3. United States v. Miller (1939) ruled that because certain shotguns having a <18” barrel do not appear to have a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, the 2A doe not guarantee the right to keep and bear such a weapon. I would say that this ruling can somewhat reasonably be interpreted as “siding with gun control.” The sad part about this ruling was the fact that these shotguns actually WERE used by the military, and the justices were not made aware of the fact. The Miller ruling was a trainwreck.
        
        4. DC v Heller (2008) - you know, and your butthurt is delicious
        
        5. Chicago v McDonald (2010) - you also know, and your butthurt is still delicious.
      - Rick Derris
        
        I don’t know why you posted those cases and then commented again a few seconds later.
        
        The Second Amendment does restrict the power of the federal government by allowing states to have their own militias to prevent overreach from the federal government. The court still sided against the gun owners in Cruikshank.
        
        In Presser, they ruled that non-state militias are still under the same gun regulations as those not in a militia.
        
        The Miller case specifically ruled against Miller because the weapon he was in possession of was not for service in a militia.
        
        Do you have any original arguments? Because you’re not the first person that’s tried this.
        
        You could go down the list I gave you up above if you can’t be original.
      - http://religionandpolitics.org/ religion&politics
        
        In the Miller case, they did rule against the gun owner. In the other 4 cases they did not. Do YOU have any original arguments? How about any factual arguments?
        
        Explain again how Crukshanks and Presser ruled “against the gun owners”?? Neither case reinterpreted the 2A as a collective right, nor did either case open the way for additional gun control. You’re living in a fantasy world.
      - Rick Derris
        
        All cases upheld gun control laws. Why are you lying?
      - http://religionandpolitics.org/ religion&politics
        
        Cruikshank held that white attempts to infringe upon the rights of black freemen to keep and bear arms was not constitutional. Hardly upholding gun control.
        
        Presser held that states may disallow private milita formation because this does not interfere with the invididual right to keep and bear arms.
        
        Heller and McDonald went further. The lone hold-out was Miller, the trainwreck where justices made a decision based on less than all the facts. Why are YOU lying you despicable little weasel?
      - Rick Derris
        
        Did any of the cases overturn gun laws or not side with the state?
        
        “you despicable little weasel?”
        
        Delicious! Troll butthurt is the best!
        
        When you anger the trolls, there’s nothing like it.
      - http://religionandpolitics.org/ religion&politics
        
        Why are you suddenly talking about overturning gun laws? Trying to change the subject now that I’ve shown your whopper of a lie for what it is? Each of these interpretations showed the 2A to be an INDIVIDUAL right. Overturning gun laws and/or siding with the state is completely irrelevant.
      - Rick Derris
        
        Answer the question.
      - http://religionandpolitics.org/ religion&politics
        
        You first:
        
        First is the assertion that the Dred Scott case somehow doesn’t matter because (1) it was decided long after the founders were dead and (2) didn’t change the state of gun laws, while you then proceed to quote Joseph Story, whose work was ALSO written long after the founders were dead and didn’t change any gun laws either. Why is your reference ok and mine not? That’s quite the hypocrisy you’ve got going on there.
        
        Second is the assertion that the Di ck Act of 1903 is somehow invalid because it codified the idea of an unorganized militia, which did actually exist in colonial times (I notice you also make this claim with no evidence). The Di ck Act is not invalid at all, just as Miller 1939 was not invalid, Heller is not invalid, and your butthurt is really showing in your desperation to completely disregard and ignore any evidence that doesn’t support your preconceptions. You really don’t understand how our laws work, do you?
      - Rick Derris
        
        You know the answer to the question, and that’s why you don’t want to say it.
        
        SCOTUS sided on gun control in every case until Heller.
        
        The Militia Act of 1793 showed that there was no unorganized militia. Every able-bodied white man between 18-44 was requred to be in it.
      - http://religionandpolitics.org/ religion&politics
        
        Perhaps you and I have different definitions of “gun control.”
        
        How exactly is is “gun control” to rule that whites do not have the right to restrict the right to keep and bear arms of freed slaves?
        
        How exactly is it “gun control” to prevent the organization of a local militia group? Go ahead, answer the question.
      - Rick Derris
        
        Your interpretation of Cruikshank is wrong (the court sided with the white guys), but that just shows your lack of reading skills.
        
        You still didn’t answer the question.
      - http://religionandpolitics.org/ religion&politics
        
        You want answers to your questions? You should perhaps answer some of mine then.
        
        So again, How exactly is is “gun control” to rule that the 2A limits the power of the federal government over the individual right to keep and bear arms?
        
        How exactly is it “gun control” to prevent the organization of a local militia group?
        
        Go ahead, answer the question. Pretty sure you’re too cowardly though, you’re just going to continue to deflect and bloviate. Coward.
      - Rick Derris
        
        I already answered these questions.
        
        Why are you dodging mine?
      - http://religionandpolitics.org/ religion&politics
        
        No you didn’t I haven’t seen even a single response to how either Cruikshanks or Presser constitutes gun control. You’ve claimed that I’m misinterpreting Cruikshank, and you’re radio silent on Presser. So go ahead, I’ll wait for your answer.
      - Rick Derris
        
        “The Second Amendment does restrict the power of the federal government by allowing states to have their own militias to prevent overreach from the federal government. The court still sided against the gun owners in Cruikshank.
        
        In Presser, they ruled that non-state militias are still under the same gun regulations as those not in a militia.
        
        The Miller case specifically ruled against Miller because the weapon he was in possession of was not for service in a militia.”
        
        Quoted, because I already said this several comments ago.
        
        All of these cases sided with the state on gun control. You have also misrepresented the Presser case. SCOTUS ruled on Presser that non-state militias have to go under the same gun regulations as civilians not in a militia. They already have the First Amendment right to assemble.
        
        So why are you dodging the question? I’ve answered yours.
      - http://religionandpolitics.org/ religion&politics
        
        Yes, you said this before. However, none of this is “gun control” at all. Claiming that “siding against gun owners” is the same as “gun control” is simply not true. EVERYONE in the Cruikshank case was a gun owner on both sides. Cruikshank didn’t have anything to do with gun laws, but with state vs federal rights.
        
        You’re also entirely misinterpreting Presser, which only ruled that the 2A was a right of individuals, not militias, and was not a right to form or belong to a militia, but related to an individual right to bear arms for the good of the United States, who could serve as members of a militia upon being called up by the Government in time of collective need.
        
        Perhaps you are TRYING to answer the question, but you’re failing miserably. I AM answering your question you buffoon.
      - Rick Derris
        
        You didn’t answer the question.
        
        Were any gun control laws overturned?
      - http://religionandpolitics.org/ religion&politics
        
        Not that I know of, no. So the heck what?
        
        You didn’t answer the question: Why are you suddenly talking about overturning gun control laws? We’re talking about whether or not the SCOTUS has upheld the 2A as an individual or collective right? Why are you moving the goalposts?
      - Rick Derris
        
        “Not that I know of, no. So the heck what?”
        
        It means that gun control has been declared constitutional.
        
        Thanks for finally answering the question.
        
        Thanks for playing!
      - http://religionandpolitics.org/ religion&politics
        
        Pus sy
      - Rick Derris
        
        Thanks for playing.
      - http://religionandpolitics.org/ religion&politics
        
        That’s quite the false equivalence you’re working with there. Like I said, you only hear what you want to. You can suck it you despicable little weasel.
      - Rick Derris
        
        Thanks for playing.
        
        I will enjoy your butthurt.
      - http://religionandpolitics.org/ religion&politics
        
        Guess it’s pretty easy to claim “victory” when you lie and move the goalposts. I notice you never answered my question either. Whatever you despicable little weasel. Move along.
      - Rick Derris
        
        Thanks for playing.
      - http://religionandpolitics.org/ religion&politics
        
        Kiss my a s s
      - Rick Derris
        
        Like I said, I will enjoy your butthurt.
        
        I guess you’re going to keep whining until you get the last word, so once again, thanks for playing.
      - http://religionandpolitics.org/ religion&politics
        
        yawn.
        
        Yes, gun control is constitutional, even in the Heller ruling this is stated plainly. However, the 2A is also an INDIVIDUAL right, which has been upheld time and again. Nothing you have said has in any way disputed this fact.
        
        Not sure who is more “butthurt” here, but the person doing the lying, deflecting and straw-man arguing has my vote.
      - http://religionandpolitics.org/ religion&politics
        
        Gee, nice weasel move going back in and adding more info to your posts, making it look like I’m ignoring your points. Very sleazy.
        
        The Militia Act does not “show” that there was no unorganized militia. Simply not mentioning a particular entity does not constitute proof positive that said entity does not exist. And SO WHAT if there was no unorganized militia at that time (assuming you’re correct, which is quite a stretch). The Di ck act re-interpreted the Militia Act IN FAVOR of individual gun owners, huh? Gee, too bad for you and your little “Heller changed hundreds of years of precedent BS”
      - Rick Derris
        
        There is no law recognizing an unorganized militia during the founders.
        
        You’re asking to prove that something doesn’t exist. You have to prove that it does.
        
        You’re also confusing an unorganized militia with a non-state militia. The unorganized militia represents every able-bodied male from the age of 18-44 that isn’t in the National Guard or a federal employee.
        
        Every able-bodied white male of similar age was in the organized militia in 1792.
      - http://religionandpolitics.org/ religion&politics
        
        Yes there is. Why are you lying?
        
        https://www.law.cornell.Edu/uscode/text/10/311
      - Rick Derris
        
        That’s a 20th century law.
        
        Why are you lying?
      - http://religionandpolitics.org/ religion&politics
        
        Well that’s what happens when you go back and change the content of your post. Why act like a sleazebag? Can’t win the argument based on its merits alone?
      - Rick Derris
        
        I didn’t change anything. It’s not my fault you can’t read.
        
        You already admitted gun control is constitutional. Have a nice day.
      - http://religionandpolitics.org/ religion&politics
        
        And you’re a lying little pus sy. Wow, guess when you can’t win with honest argument, you resort to lies and misdirection. Whatever, go ahead and continue enjoying the fruits of the Heller and McDonald decisions, the fact that all 50 states now have concealed carry, that an increasing number of states are allowing constitutional carry, that “may issue” has repeatedly been struck down in the courts, and that fewer and fewer members of the public have any appetite for gun control at all. Continue on with your dishonest blathering.
      - Rick Derris
        
        You’re really mad! LOL!
      - http://religionandpolitics.org/ religion&politics
        
        That’s what happens when despicable little weasel trolls deliberately lie and obfuscate the truth. You’re pathetic, and you’ve “won” nothing here. Kiss my a s s.
      - http://religionandpolitics.org/ religion&politics
        
        Funny how you supposedly “Google,” yet you can’t find the book I cite. Gee, I wonder why that is? Here is is, you should check it out. It’s a good, thorough read if you’re not too cowardly to expand your worldview a little bit:
        
        http://www.claytoncramer.Com/books/Ncutdown.pdf
      - Rick Derris
        
        Yes, I saw that first. It was only a small part of the book.
        
        I did see that it had a chapter called, “The Problem With The Courts”. I wonder what it says!
        
        You still have nothing. There’s only been a handful of cases involving the Second Amendment in the Supreme Court, and ever case that came before the formation of the Roberts court sided with the state against the gun owner. That includes all three cases you cited.
      - http://religionandpolitics.org/ religion&politics
        
        I have more than you. Where is your “evidence”?? You make lots of claims, and I have yet to see any real evidence at all.
      - Rick Derris
        
        I provided all my evidence yesterday. I even answered your asinine questions.
        
        So far, you haven’t refuted any of it.
      - http://religionandpolitics.org/ religion&politics
        
        It’s very difficult to refute someone who only sees what they want to see and who apparently can’t read plain English.
      - Rick Derris
        
        Well, Ive been waiting for a response from you for nearly forty minutes now and haven’t got one.
        
        Sadly, this will turn our comment thread into one big, jumbled mess.
        
        While waiting on your response I found a nice gem called, “Documents on the First Congress Debate on Arms and Militia.”
        
        While I can’t post the link, you can google it. It will be at a website with the word “Constitution” in it.
        
        This details the debate that took place while the Second Amendment was being made. It went through several drafts, but it made a few good points that will answer your stupid questions.
        
        1. While we’ve been discussong the words of “the people”, we didn’t look at what it meant to bear arms.
        
        In the early draft of the Amendment, there was fierce debate on whether or not a person with a religious objection should be forced to bear arms. If the Amendment was meant to apply to private ownership of firearms for personal use, this would not have been debated, as the government had no interest in forcing a man to own a weapon for that purpose. The debate was around whether or not a religious pacifist would be forced into serving in the militia, as was made clear in the debate. Eventually it was turned down because of fears that pacifist religions like the Quakers would leave the number of militiamen too small where religions like the Quakers were in the majority.
        
        So, the right of the people to bear arms is about militia service under their respective state.
        
        2. You wondered why this would be the only Amendment that would expand government while the others didn’t. The answer is that its intention was to do both.
        
        While Article l, Section 8 of the Constitution says that the purpose of the militia is to, “execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions”, ot also had a second, unwritten role, and that was protection of the states from overreach of the federal government. The founders liked the performance of professional armies, but they also feared their role in taking away freedom, as they saw underthe British throne. So the formation of a militia was a sort of check and balance; the militia would suppress citizens whom took up arms against the federal government, but it also gave the states the ability to defend themselves against the federal branch.
        
        But NOWHERE in the debate was the use or ownership of firearms for personal use mentioned, meaning that the entirety of the Second Amendment was discussing the right of the states to form militias bothfor the defense of the nation, but also to protect the states in case the federal government decides to get too uppity.
        
        So as usual, I’m right, you’re wrong, and all your questions were answered.
        
        You got anything else?
      - http://religionandpolitics.org/ religion&politics
        
        Sorry dude, but unlike you, I actually have a job. No more time for this. Good luck convincing the SCOTUS of your claims, and good luck convincing a country increasingly aware of and keen on our gun rights.
      - Rick Derris
        
        Oh, don’t tap out now!
        
        I was enjoying kicking your behind!
        
        Come back, troll! I so want you to show me where I wasn’t COMPLETELY RIGHT about everything!
      - http://religionandpolitics.org/ religion&politics
        
        Only in your own mind there libturd. Funny how you somehow know better than the highest court in the land. lol suck it, then get a job.
      - Rick Derris
        
        I thought you had to work!
        
        I guess you have nothing to counter my argument since you pulled yourself away from your job to respond with nothing but an appeal to authority and personal attacks!
        
        So I guess you are okay with Roe v. Wade and gay marriage then, as you’re saying SCOTUS could never be wrong, lol!
        
        Nice ad-hominem on the job thing. I’m on the clock right now. Doesn’t your job pay you a lot of money and have internet access? Lol!
      - http://religionandpolitics.org/ religion&politics
        
        *sigh* I hardly think a two-line response can be called “pulling [my]self away from [my] job.” Yawn. Like I said, I really don’t have time for this. But I digress.
        
        I do not agree with the gay marriage ruling, I do agree with Roe v Wade, but it’s not about the SCOTUS being “right” or “wrong,” it’s about them interpreting the law (the “true” meaning of which even you have to admit is ALWAYS going to be in dispute) and taking the country in a particular direction. The SCOTUS has firmly ruled on the way the country will go in terms of abortion, guns, and gay marriage, among many other things. Right or wrong has very little to do with it.
        
        Get back to work/slacking/whatever dude, I’m sure your employer (if he actually exists) would rather you get your work done than waste time online.
      - Rick Derris
        
        I thought you had to work!
        
        So you admit that SCOTUS is wrong sometimes. Super!
        
        That kills the rest of your argument, as hanging on SCOTUS was the last leg you had to stand on.
      - http://religionandpolitics.org/ religion&politics
        
        Looking back over this comment, I’m noticing a couple of glaring problems with it. First is the assertion that the Dred Scott case somehow doesn’t matter because (1) it was decided long after the founders were dead and (2) didn’t change the state of gun laws, while you then proceed to quote Joseph Story, whose work was ALSO written long after the founders were dead and didn’t change any gun laws either. Why is your reference ok and mine not? That’s quite the hypocrisy you’ve got going on there.
        
        Second is the assertion that the Di ck Act of 1903 is somehow invalid because it codified the idea of an unorganized militia, which did actually exist in colonial times (I notice you also make this claim with no evidence). The Di ck Act is not invalid at all, just as Miller 1939 was not invalid, Heller is not invalid, and your butthurt is really showing in your desperation to completely disregard and ignore any evidence that doesn’t support your preconceptions. You really don’t understand how our laws work, do you?
      - Rick Derris
        
        Why are you replying to comments you already replied to?
      - http://religionandpolitics.org/ religion&politics
        
        Why are you not answering the question? Kinda convenient, isn’t it?
      - Rick Derris
        
        I think you’re trying desperately to push down the comments where I handed your butt to you.
      - http://religionandpolitics.org/ religion&politics
        
        I think you’re a pathetic little weasel too afraid to answer a simple question.
Adam

so tell me again how Obama is trying to take his gun? with idiots like this all we have to do is give them time and opportunity and the ones who really need safety courses will dissapear
lavenderlady

This is funny.
StrangeOneClearcut

Wouldn’t you like to have found it this guy was Ricardo or Otto the two trolls who post their right wing garbage.
- http://religionandpolitics.org/ religion&politics
  
  Oh stop your whining, you’re clearly letting them get to you.
http://religionandpolitics.org/ religion&politics

So it’s all about RACISM all the time, isn’t it libturds? Gawd
- Spawn_of_Santa
  
  Uh…this clearly was about racism, and stupidity, and..well… guess you know about stupidity, having to live with the condition and all.
Spawn_of_Santa

It’s a shame stupidity isn’t a crime.

People, if you’re going to carry…GET A FREAKIN’ HOLSTER.

More Stories

resizedimage

A Short List Of Obama’s ‘Failures’ That Ben Carson Said Were ‘Too Depressing’ To List At The CPAC

Ben Carson said Obama’s failures were “too depressing” to list, so we are going to help him out.