# The Second Amendment Was A Failure From The Start, And Should Have Been Repealed 200 Years Ago



## skews13

Laws about freedom of speech don’t just shift when it comes to content and context, they’re also constantly updated to address something else: technology. Radio. Movies. Television. The internet. Even comic books. All have sparked changes in what is permitted and how speech is regulated. But somehow, we pretend that guns are different; that words written when the most deadly weapon required a ramrod and black powder mean that we can’t make adjustments for a semi-automatic rifle and a 30-round clip.

The truth is that guns _are _different. Because the right to bear arms is _a lesser right_. A right that was never intended to exist at all.

What makes individual gun ownership a lesser right? It’s a right that only exists in the minds of a handful of hard-right Supreme Court justices who happen to be on the court at this moment. Until 2008, no federal court had _ever_ ruled that the Second Amendment included a right to individual gun ownership. It was always understood as it was written: Guns were allowed in individual hands as a means to supply the armed forces.

Here’s the _Milwaukee Independent_ looking at how Chief Justice Warren Burger discussed the Second Amendment.


> The Gun Lobby’s interpretation of the Second Amendment is one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American People by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime. The real purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that state armies – the militia – would be maintained for the defense of the state. The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires.


That the Second Amendment exists at all is more an accident of timing than an attempt to put guns in the hands of every American.
The amendment grew out of a fear that having a standing army would leave the nation open to depredations by an authoritarian leader, or that the nascent democracy would be overthrown by a military junta. To that end, they explicitly inserted the Second Amendment as an alternative means of providing national defense.

 There were multiple drafts of the Second Amendment. Every one of them includes text explaining that this amendment exists only because it’s needed to provide for the nation’s defense.
Just a year after the Constitution was ratified, George Washington nudged Congress to create an official U.S. military, but the still-fearful Congress limited that force to just few hundred soldiers and officers. It would be another six years before it was allowed to grow significantly. When war came in 1812 two things were immediately obvious: The number of soldiers then in the official U.S. military were far from enough to defend the nation, and the poorly organized civilian militias for which the Second Amendment was created were an absolute failure when it came to national defense.

In the next year, the professional military of the United States grew by over 300%. “Second Amendment solutions” were on their way out.
The Second Amendment is failure. It _never _worked for its intended purposes. It was born from  the understandable fears of a new nation engaged in a radical new scheme. But it was a mistake. It may be the most costly mistake this nation has ever made other than failing to end slavery at the outset.

The right thing to do would be to recognize that mistake and pass a new amendment that simply ends the Second Amendment, just as the 18th Amendment was repealed by the 21st Amendment in 1933. (Take a drink.)

Instead, we get statements like this piece of profound ignorance. One that is wrong. Wrong. Wrong again. And then … still wrong.


Recognizing that an actual repeal of the Second Amendment—while absolutely just—isn’t likely, the next best thing is to simply recognize that the right to individual gun ownership is _a lesser right_, one whose appearance in that useless amendment subjects it to practical constraint.









						The Second Amendment was a failure from the start, and should have been repealed 200 years ago
					

There is no such thing as an unconstrained right. Speech has limits. Religion has limits. Assembly has limits. The idea that any of these things can be completely “free” of government oversight is a pipedream, and everyone from the founders to the...




					www.dailykos.com
				




Individual gun ownership rights are the result of a Supreme Court decision. Specifically Heller v DC

Just like abortion rights are the result of a Supreme Court decision. Specifically Roe v Wade

The current court is ready to take away Roe v Wade.

A future court can do the same with Heller v DC.


----------



## Harry Dresden

another skewy stupid thread.....


----------



## Calypso Jones

There is no right to kill your unborn child in the constitution.

THERE IS A DEFINITE 2nd amendment.


----------



## Rambunctious

Democrats hold the power in America today... they have majority in both houses and the white house... But they can't pass a single gun buying reform bill?... Trump did when he was president.... so what's Joe's problem?....


----------



## Sunsettommy

"A future court can do the same with Heller v DC."

Not with the Second Amendment in place.

Try looking at the problem objectively then you will understand that Guns does NOT kill anyone, but deranged and hard criminals do it easily.


----------



## Rye Catcher

Harry Dresden said:


> another skewy stupid thread.....


Now I understand what being _postal is _all about.


----------



## Rye Catcher

Calypso Jones said:


> There is no right to kill your unborn child in the constitution.
> 
> THERE IS A DEFINITE 2nd amendment.


There is no right to murder children in school classrooms.


----------



## hadit

skews13 said:


> Laws about freedom of speech don’t just shift when it comes to content and context, they’re also constantly updated to address something else: technology. Radio. Movies. Television. The internet. Even comic books. All have sparked changes in what is permitted and how speech is regulated. But somehow, we pretend that guns are different; that words written when the most deadly weapon required a ramrod and black powder mean that we can’t make adjustments for a semi-automatic rifle and a 30-round clip.
> 
> The truth is that guns _are _different. Because the right to bear arms is _a lesser right_. A right that was never intended to exist at all.
> 
> What makes individual gun ownership a lesser right? It’s a right that only exists in the minds of a handful of hard-right Supreme Court justices who happen to be on the court at this moment. Until 2008, no federal court had _ever_ ruled that the Second Amendment included a right to individual gun ownership. It was always understood as it was written: Guns were allowed in individual hands as a means to supply the armed forces.
> 
> Here’s the _Milwaukee Independent_ looking at how Chief Justice Warren Burger discussed the Second Amendment.
> 
> That the Second Amendment exists at all is more an accident of timing than an attempt to put guns in the hands of every American.
> The amendment grew out of a fear that having a standing army would leave the nation open to depredations by an authoritarian leader, or that the nascent democracy would be overthrown by a military junta. To that end, they explicitly inserted the Second Amendment as an alternative means of providing national defense.
> 
> There were multiple drafts of the Second Amendment. Every one of them includes text explaining that this amendment exists only because it’s needed to provide for the nation’s defense.
> Just a year after the Constitution was ratified, George Washington nudged Congress to create an official U.S. military, but the still-fearful Congress limited that force to just few hundred soldiers and officers. It would be another six years before it was allowed to grow significantly. When war came in 1812 two things were immediately obvious: The number of soldiers then in the official U.S. military were far from enough to defend the nation, and the poorly organized civilian militias for which the Second Amendment was created were an absolute failure when it came to national defense.
> 
> In the next year, the professional military of the United States grew by over 300%. “Second Amendment solutions” were on their way out.
> The Second Amendment is failure. It _never _worked for its intended purposes. It was born from  the understandable fears of a new nation engaged in a radical new scheme. But it was a mistake. It may be the most costly mistake this nation has ever made other than failing to end slavery at the outset.
> 
> The right thing to do would be to recognize that mistake and pass a new amendment that simply ends the Second Amendment, just as the 18th Amendment was repealed by the 21st Amendment in 1933. (Take a drink.)
> 
> Instead, we get statements like this piece of profound ignorance. One that is wrong. Wrong. Wrong again. And then … still wrong.
> 
> 
> Recognizing that an actual repeal of the Second Amendment—while absolutely just—isn’t likely, the next best thing is to simply recognize that the right to individual gun ownership is _a lesser right_, one whose appearance in that useless amendment subjects it to practical constraint.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Second Amendment was a failure from the start, and should have been repealed 200 years ago
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as an unconstrained right. Speech has limits. Religion has limits. Assembly has limits. The idea that any of these things can be completely “free” of government oversight is a pipedream, and everyone from the founders to the...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dailykos.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Individual gun ownership rights are the result of a Supreme Court decision. Specifically Heller v DC
> 
> Just like abortion rights are the result of a Supreme Court decision. Specifically Roe v Wade
> 
> The current court is ready to take away Roe v Wade.
> 
> A future court can do the same with Heller v DC.


Let's see if we understand you. Declaring that the 2nd was a mistake, you then acknowledge that you can't get rid of it the proper way, which is to pass another amendment nullifying the 2nd, so your solution is to IGNORE the constitution and just pretend it doesn't say what it says? Face it, Roe doesn't enter into this because it is not a right encoded into the constitution.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

skews13 said:


> Laws about freedom of speech don’t just shift when it comes to content and context, they’re also constantly updated to address something else: technology. Radio. Movies. Television. The internet. Even comic books. All have sparked changes in what is permitted and how speech is regulated. But somehow, we pretend that guns are different; that words written when the most deadly weapon required a ramrod and black powder mean that we can’t make adjustments for a semi-automatic rifle and a 30-round clip.
> 
> The truth is that guns _are _different. Because the right to bear arms is _a lesser right_. A right that was never intended to exist at all.
> 
> What makes individual gun ownership a lesser right? It’s a right that only exists in the minds of a handful of hard-right Supreme Court justices who happen to be on the court at this moment. Until 2008, no federal court had _ever_ ruled that the Second Amendment included a right to individual gun ownership. It was always understood as it was written: Guns were allowed in individual hands as a means to supply the armed forces.
> 
> Here’s the _Milwaukee Independent_ looking at how Chief Justice Warren Burger discussed the Second Amendment.
> 
> That the Second Amendment exists at all is more an accident of timing than an attempt to put guns in the hands of every American.
> The amendment grew out of a fear that having a standing army would leave the nation open to depredations by an authoritarian leader, or that the nascent democracy would be overthrown by a military junta. To that end, they explicitly inserted the Second Amendment as an alternative means of providing national defense.
> 
> There were multiple drafts of the Second Amendment. Every one of them includes text explaining that this amendment exists only because it’s needed to provide for the nation’s defense.
> Just a year after the Constitution was ratified, George Washington nudged Congress to create an official U.S. military, but the still-fearful Congress limited that force to just few hundred soldiers and officers. It would be another six years before it was allowed to grow significantly. When war came in 1812 two things were immediately obvious: The number of soldiers then in the official U.S. military were far from enough to defend the nation, and the poorly organized civilian militias for which the Second Amendment was created were an absolute failure when it came to national defense.
> 
> In the next year, the professional military of the United States grew by over 300%. “Second Amendment solutions” were on their way out.
> The Second Amendment is failure. It _never _worked for its intended purposes. It was born from  the understandable fears of a new nation engaged in a radical new scheme. But it was a mistake. It may be the most costly mistake this nation has ever made other than failing to end slavery at the outset.
> 
> The right thing to do would be to recognize that mistake and pass a new amendment that simply ends the Second Amendment, just as the 18th Amendment was repealed by the 21st Amendment in 1933. (Take a drink.)
> 
> Instead, we get statements like this piece of profound ignorance. One that is wrong. Wrong. Wrong again. And then … still wrong.
> 
> 
> Recognizing that an actual repeal of the Second Amendment—while absolutely just—isn’t likely, the next best thing is to simply recognize that the right to individual gun ownership is _a lesser right_, one whose appearance in that useless amendment subjects it to practical constraint.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Second Amendment was a failure from the start, and should have been repealed 200 years ago
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as an unconstrained right. Speech has limits. Religion has limits. Assembly has limits. The idea that any of these things can be completely “free” of government oversight is a pipedream, and everyone from the founders to the...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dailykos.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Individual gun ownership rights are the result of a Supreme Court decision. Specifically Heller v DC
> 
> Just like abortion rights are the result of a Supreme Court decision. Specifically Roe v Wade
> 
> The current court is ready to take away Roe v Wade.
> 
> A future court can do the same with Heller v DC.


Move to Canada


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Rye Catcher said:


> There is no right to murder children in school classrooms.


Genius!

OMG!!!


----------



## Billy_Bob

SKews is a MORON...  The Declaration of Independence was very clear on the second amendment and why it exists.

Excerp:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --*That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.* Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. *But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--"


Source*


----------



## BlackSand

skews13 said:


> Laws about freedom of speech don’t just shift when it comes to content and context, they’re also constantly updated to address something else: technology. Radio. Movies. Television. The internet. Even comic books. All have sparked changes in what is permitted and how speech is regulated. But somehow, we pretend that guns are different; that words written when the most deadly weapon required a ramrod and black powder mean that we can’t make adjustments for a semi-automatic rifle and a 30-round clip.
> 
> The truth is that guns _are _different. Because the right to bear arms is _a lesser right_. A right that was never intended to exist at all.
> 
> What makes individual gun ownership a lesser right? It’s a right that only exists in the minds of a handful of hard-right Supreme Court justices who happen to be on the court at this moment. Until 2008, no federal court had _ever_ ruled that the Second Amendment included a right to individual gun ownership. It was always understood as it was written: Guns were allowed in individual hands as a means to supply the armed forces.
> 
> Here’s the _Milwaukee Independent_ looking at how Chief Justice Warren Burger discussed the Second Amendment.
> 
> That the Second Amendment exists at all is more an accident of timing than an attempt to put guns in the hands of every American.
> The amendment grew out of a fear that having a standing army would leave the nation open to depredations by an authoritarian leader, or that the nascent democracy would be overthrown by a military junta. To that end, they explicitly inserted the Second Amendment as an alternative means of providing national defense.
> 
> There were multiple drafts of the Second Amendment. Every one of them includes text explaining that this amendment exists only because it’s needed to provide for the nation’s defense.
> Just a year after the Constitution was ratified, George Washington nudged Congress to create an official U.S. military, but the still-fearful Congress limited that force to just few hundred soldiers and officers. It would be another six years before it was allowed to grow significantly. When war came in 1812 two things were immediately obvious: The number of soldiers then in the official U.S. military were far from enough to defend the nation, and the poorly organized civilian militias for which the Second Amendment was created were an absolute failure when it came to national defense.
> 
> In the next year, the professional military of the United States grew by over 300%. “Second Amendment solutions” were on their way out.
> The Second Amendment is failure. It _never _worked for its intended purposes. It was born from  the understandable fears of a new nation engaged in a radical new scheme. But it was a mistake. It may be the most costly mistake this nation has ever made other than failing to end slavery at the outset.
> 
> The right thing to do would be to recognize that mistake and pass a new amendment that simply ends the Second Amendment, just as the 18th Amendment was repealed by the 21st Amendment in 1933. (Take a drink.)
> 
> Instead, we get statements like this piece of profound ignorance. One that is wrong. Wrong. Wrong again. And then … still wrong.
> 
> 
> Recognizing that an actual repeal of the Second Amendment—while absolutely just—isn’t likely, the next best thing is to simply recognize that the right to individual gun ownership is _a lesser right_, one whose appearance in that useless amendment subjects it to practical constraint.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Second Amendment was a failure from the start, and should have been repealed 200 years ago
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as an unconstrained right. Speech has limits. Religion has limits. Assembly has limits. The idea that any of these things can be completely “free” of government oversight is a pipedream, and everyone from the founders to the...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dailykos.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Individual gun ownership rights are the result of a Supreme Court decision. Specifically Heller v DC
> 
> Just like abortion rights are the result of a Supreme Court decision. Specifically Roe v Wade
> 
> The current court is ready to take away Roe v Wade.
> 
> A future court can do the same with Heller v DC.


.

Then try to repeal it ...   
Stop trying to walk around it like it doesn't exist.

.​


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

skews13 said:


> Laws about freedom of speech don’t just shift when it comes to content and context, they’re also constantly updated to address something else: technology. Radio. Movies. Television. The internet. Even comic books. All have sparked changes in what is permitted and how speech is regulated. But somehow, we pretend that guns are different; that words written when the most deadly weapon required a ramrod and black powder mean that we can’t make adjustments for a semi-automatic rifle and a 30-round clip.
> 
> The truth is that guns _are _different. Because the right to bear arms is _a lesser right_. A right that was never intended to exist at all.
> 
> What makes individual gun ownership a lesser right? It’s a right that only exists in the minds of a handful of hard-right Supreme Court justices who happen to be on the court at this moment. Until 2008, no federal court had _ever_ ruled that the Second Amendment included a right to individual gun ownership. It was always understood as it was written: Guns were allowed in individual hands as a means to supply the armed forces.
> 
> Here’s the _Milwaukee Independent_ looking at how Chief Justice Warren Burger discussed the Second Amendment.
> 
> That the Second Amendment exists at all is more an accident of timing than an attempt to put guns in the hands of every American.
> The amendment grew out of a fear that having a standing army would leave the nation open to depredations by an authoritarian leader, or that the nascent democracy would be overthrown by a military junta. To that end, they explicitly inserted the Second Amendment as an alternative means of providing national defense.
> 
> There were multiple drafts of the Second Amendment. Every one of them includes text explaining that this amendment exists only because it’s needed to provide for the nation’s defense.
> Just a year after the Constitution was ratified, George Washington nudged Congress to create an official U.S. military, but the still-fearful Congress limited that force to just few hundred soldiers and officers. It would be another six years before it was allowed to grow significantly. When war came in 1812 two things were immediately obvious: The number of soldiers then in the official U.S. military were far from enough to defend the nation, and the poorly organized civilian militias for which the Second Amendment was created were an absolute failure when it came to national defense.
> 
> In the next year, the professional military of the United States grew by over 300%. “Second Amendment solutions” were on their way out.
> The Second Amendment is failure. It _never _worked for its intended purposes. It was born from  the understandable fears of a new nation engaged in a radical new scheme. But it was a mistake. It may be the most costly mistake this nation has ever made other than failing to end slavery at the outset.
> 
> The right thing to do would be to recognize that mistake and pass a new amendment that simply ends the Second Amendment, just as the 18th Amendment was repealed by the 21st Amendment in 1933. (Take a drink.)
> 
> Instead, we get statements like this piece of profound ignorance. One that is wrong. Wrong. Wrong again. And then … still wrong.
> 
> 
> Recognizing that an actual repeal of the Second Amendment—while absolutely just—isn’t likely, the next best thing is to simply recognize that the right to individual gun ownership is _a lesser right_, one whose appearance in that useless amendment subjects it to practical constraint.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Second Amendment was a failure from the start, and should have been repealed 200 years ago
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as an unconstrained right. Speech has limits. Religion has limits. Assembly has limits. The idea that any of these things can be completely “free” of government oversight is a pipedream, and everyone from the founders to the...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dailykos.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Individual gun ownership rights are the result of a Supreme Court decision. Specifically Heller v DC
> 
> Just like abortion rights are the result of a Supreme Court decision. Specifically Roe v Wade
> 
> The current court is ready to take away Roe v Wade.
> 
> A future court can do the same with Heller v DC.



Wrong.


----------



## Sunsettommy

Rye Catcher said:


> There is no right to murder children in school classrooms.



Of course, by try telling that to a deranged 18-year-old with a gun.


----------



## Rye Catcher

Sunsettommy said:


> "A future court can do the same with Heller v DC."
> 
> Not with the Second Amendment in place.
> 
> Try looking at the problem objectively then you will understand that Guns does NOT kill anyone, but deranged and hard criminals do it easily.


What a foolish argument this is in defense with the 2nd A.


----------



## BlackSand

Rye Catcher said:


> There is no right to murder children in school classrooms.


.

... And that would be a crime and there is a Federal Statute that addresses that.
It's already forbidden by law.

.​


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Rye Catcher said:


> There is no right to murder children in school classrooms.



It's against the law to murder children in school classrooms.


----------



## Sunsettommy

Rye Catcher said:


> What a foolish argument this is in defense with the 2nd A.



Notice you posted no argument against it.

You should eat more spinach first.


----------



## JustAGuy1

Rye Catcher said:


> Now I understand what being _postal is _all about.



^^^^Idiot  Gram


----------



## Leweman

Based on how well we secure our border from illegals and fentanyl, no doubt we would be able to keep guns away from people who wanted to use them.  It's just the pesky 2nd amendment causing this.  Dang.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

skews13 said:


> Laws about freedom of speech don’t just shift when it comes to content and context, they’re also constantly updated to address something else: technology. Radio. Movies. Television. The internet. Even comic books. All have sparked changes in what is permitted and how speech is regulated. But somehow, we pretend that guns are different; that words written when the most deadly weapon required a ramrod and black powder mean that we can’t make adjustments for a semi-automatic rifle and a 30-round clip.
> 
> The truth is that guns _are _different. Because the right to bear arms is _a lesser right_. A right that was never intended to exist at all.
> 
> What makes individual gun ownership a lesser right? It’s a right that only exists in the minds of a handful of hard-right Supreme Court justices who happen to be on the court at this moment. Until 2008, no federal court had _ever_ ruled that the Second Amendment included a right to individual gun ownership. It was always understood as it was written: Guns were allowed in individual hands as a means to supply the armed forces.
> 
> Here’s the _Milwaukee Independent_ looking at how Chief Justice Warren Burger discussed the Second Amendment.
> 
> That the Second Amendment exists at all is more an accident of timing than an attempt to put guns in the hands of every American.
> The amendment grew out of a fear that having a standing army would leave the nation open to depredations by an authoritarian leader, or that the nascent democracy would be overthrown by a military junta. To that end, they explicitly inserted the Second Amendment as an alternative means of providing national defense.
> 
> There were multiple drafts of the Second Amendment. Every one of them includes text explaining that this amendment exists only because it’s needed to provide for the nation’s defense.
> Just a year after the Constitution was ratified, George Washington nudged Congress to create an official U.S. military, but the still-fearful Congress limited that force to just few hundred soldiers and officers. It would be another six years before it was allowed to grow significantly. When war came in 1812 two things were immediately obvious: The number of soldiers then in the official U.S. military were far from enough to defend the nation, and the poorly organized civilian militias for which the Second Amendment was created were an absolute failure when it came to national defense.
> 
> In the next year, the professional military of the United States grew by over 300%. “Second Amendment solutions” were on their way out.
> The Second Amendment is failure. It _never _worked for its intended purposes. It was born from  the understandable fears of a new nation engaged in a radical new scheme. But it was a mistake. It may be the most costly mistake this nation has ever made other than failing to end slavery at the outset.
> 
> The right thing to do would be to recognize that mistake and pass a new amendment that simply ends the Second Amendment, just as the 18th Amendment was repealed by the 21st Amendment in 1933. (Take a drink.)
> 
> Instead, we get statements like this piece of profound ignorance. One that is wrong. Wrong. Wrong again. And then … still wrong.
> 
> 
> Recognizing that an actual repeal of the Second Amendment—while absolutely just—isn’t likely, the next best thing is to simply recognize that the right to individual gun ownership is _a lesser right_, one whose appearance in that useless amendment subjects it to practical constraint.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Second Amendment was a failure from the start, and should have been repealed 200 years ago
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as an unconstrained right. Speech has limits. Religion has limits. Assembly has limits. The idea that any of these things can be completely “free” of government oversight is a pipedream, and everyone from the founders to the...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dailykos.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Individual gun ownership rights are the result of a Supreme Court decision. Specifically Heller v DC
> 
> Just like abortion rights are the result of a Supreme Court decision. Specifically Roe v Wade
> 
> The current court is ready to take away Roe v Wade.
> 
> A future court can do the same with Heller v DC.


Prior to 2010 the Second Amendment applied only to the Federal government, not the states and local jurisdictions, who were at liberty to regulate firearms as they saw fit.

The mistake was to incorporate the Second Amendment to the states, contrary to the original intent of the Framers.


----------



## BlackSand

Rye Catcher said:


> What a foolish argument this is in defense with the 2nd A.


.

About as foolish as your inability to recognize that people like you probably help sell more guns than the NRA does ...  ​.


----------



## Calypso Jones

Rye Catcher said:
			
		

> There is no right to murder children in school classrooms.



well as we say in the South....'Bless Your Heart'.


----------



## Billy_Bob

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Prior to 2010 the Second Amendment applied only to the Federal government, not the states and local jurisdictions, who were at liberty to regulate firearms as they saw fit.
> 
> The mistake was to incorporate the Second Amendment to the states, contrary to the original intent of the Framers.


Wrong... The states have no purview over weapons.  The term "shall not be infringed" means exactly that. Hands off.. as it is a right that no one can touch, not even the states.


----------



## Calypso Jones

The right doesn't shoot children.  The left kills them before they're born and supports an administration that sends American infants' formula to illegals at southern border and to Ukraine putting American infant citizens at risk.   It's all a matter of how it's done obviously.


----------



## TeeDub

Rye Catcher said:


> There is no right to murder children in school classrooms.


That is why the people doing it are CRIMINALS, idiot.


----------



## Sunsettommy

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Prior to 2010 the Second Amendment applied only to the Federal government, not the states and local jurisdictions, who were at liberty to regulate firearms as they saw fit.
> 
> The mistake was to incorporate the Second Amendment to the states, contrary to the original intent of the Framers.



Actually, the Amendment applies to everybody.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JustAGuy1 said:


> ^^^^Idiot  Gram


I have peer reviewed the above post and find it 100% accurate!


----------



## JustAGuy1

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Prior to 2010 the Second Amendment applied only to the Federal government, not the states and local jurisdictions, who were at liberty to regulate firearms as they saw fit.
> 
> The mistake was to incorporate the Second Amendment to the states, contrary to the original intent of the Framers.



Surely you can prove this assertion?


----------



## Pellinore

For starters, there is no such thing as a "lesser right."  That was invented by the Daily Kos writer to try and diminish the legitimacy of Heller.  I mean, c'mon.

But, the rest of the OP is largely correct.  The Second Amendment was written by men in the 18th century, to whom the term "bear arms" meant to serve in a State militia.  Madison and the First Congress debated the points based on the likes of when King James II tried to dismantle the local militias so his tax-collecting royal soldiers could muscle the people out of tax money; there was no mention in any of the supplemental notes or in the arguments themselves about private ownership.  None.  It was like this for almost our entire history.

It was Heller in 2008 that applied it to private ownership.  As it is a Supreme Court ruling, it can be overturned, either by legislation or by a later Supreme Court ruling, just as people are now thinking will happen to Roe v. Wade.  It is the ruling we live under now, but in the future it absolutely can be re-litigated and re-interpreted as applying only to, for example, the National Guard.


----------



## Pellinore

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Prior to 2010 the Second Amendment applied only to the Federal government, not the states and local jurisdictions, who were at liberty to regulate firearms as they saw fit.
> 
> The mistake was to incorporate the Second Amendment to the states, contrary to the original intent of the Framers.


That's a really good point about the incorporation.  It was meant to guarantee the right to the States, so it doesn't really make sense to apply it to them.


----------



## hadit

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Prior to 2010 the Second Amendment applied only to the Federal government, not the states and local jurisdictions, who were at liberty to regulate firearms as they saw fit.
> 
> The mistake was to incorporate the Second Amendment to the states, contrary to the original intent of the Framers.


Actually, the SC began applying the Constitution to the states after the 14th Amendment was ratified, and that includes the 2nd. That happened in 1868, a little earlier than your date of 2010.


----------



## Lastamender

skews13 said:


> Laws about freedom of speech don’t just shift when it comes to content and context, they’re also constantly updated to address something else: technology. Radio. Movies. Television. The internet. Even comic books. All have sparked changes in what is permitted and how speech is regulated. But somehow, we pretend that guns are different; that words written when the most deadly weapon required a ramrod and black powder mean that we can’t make adjustments for a semi-automatic rifle and a 30-round clip.
> 
> The truth is that guns _are _different. Because the right to bear arms is _a lesser right_. A right that was never intended to exist at all.
> 
> What makes individual gun ownership a lesser right? It’s a right that only exists in the minds of a handful of hard-right Supreme Court justices who happen to be on the court at this moment. Until 2008, no federal court had _ever_ ruled that the Second Amendment included a right to individual gun ownership. It was always understood as it was written: Guns were allowed in individual hands as a means to supply the armed forces.
> 
> Here’s the _Milwaukee Independent_ looking at how Chief Justice Warren Burger discussed the Second Amendment.
> 
> That the Second Amendment exists at all is more an accident of timing than an attempt to put guns in the hands of every American.
> The amendment grew out of a fear that having a standing army would leave the nation open to depredations by an authoritarian leader, or that the nascent democracy would be overthrown by a military junta. To that end, they explicitly inserted the Second Amendment as an alternative means of providing national defense.
> 
> There were multiple drafts of the Second Amendment. Every one of them includes text explaining that this amendment exists only because it’s needed to provide for the nation’s defense.
> Just a year after the Constitution was ratified, George Washington nudged Congress to create an official U.S. military, but the still-fearful Congress limited that force to just few hundred soldiers and officers. It would be another six years before it was allowed to grow significantly. When war came in 1812 two things were immediately obvious: The number of soldiers then in the official U.S. military were far from enough to defend the nation, and the poorly organized civilian militias for which the Second Amendment was created were an absolute failure when it came to national defense.
> 
> In the next year, the professional military of the United States grew by over 300%. “Second Amendment solutions” were on their way out.
> The Second Amendment is failure. It _never _worked for its intended purposes. It was born from  the understandable fears of a new nation engaged in a radical new scheme. But it was a mistake. It may be the most costly mistake this nation has ever made other than failing to end slavery at the outset.
> 
> The right thing to do would be to recognize that mistake and pass a new amendment that simply ends the Second Amendment, just as the 18th Amendment was repealed by the 21st Amendment in 1933. (Take a drink.)
> 
> Instead, we get statements like this piece of profound ignorance. One that is wrong. Wrong. Wrong again. And then … still wrong.
> 
> 
> Recognizing that an actual repeal of the Second Amendment—while absolutely just—isn’t likely, the next best thing is to simply recognize that the right to individual gun ownership is _a lesser right_, one whose appearance in that useless amendment subjects it to practical constraint.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Second Amendment was a failure from the start, and should have been repealed 200 years ago
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as an unconstrained right. Speech has limits. Religion has limits. Assembly has limits. The idea that any of these things can be completely “free” of government oversight is a pipedream, and everyone from the founders to the...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dailykos.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Individual gun ownership rights are the result of a Supreme Court decision. Specifically Heller v DC
> 
> Just like abortion rights are the result of a Supreme Court decision. Specifically Roe v Wade
> 
> The current court is ready to take away Roe v Wade.
> 
> A future court can do the same with Heller v DC.


You should have been alive 200 years ago. Someone would have shot you.


----------



## JohnDB

skews13 said:


> Laws about freedom of speech don’t just shift when it comes to content and context, they’re also constantly updated to address something else: technology. Radio. Movies. Television. The internet. Even comic books. All have sparked changes in what is permitted and how speech is regulated. But somehow, we pretend that guns are different; that words written when the most deadly weapon required a ramrod and black powder mean that we can’t make adjustments for a semi-automatic rifle and a 30-round clip.
> 
> The truth is that guns _are _different. Because the right to bear arms is _a lesser right_. A right that was never intended to exist at all.
> 
> What makes individual gun ownership a lesser right? It’s a right that only exists in the minds of a handful of hard-right Supreme Court justices who happen to be on the court at this moment. Until 2008, no federal court had _ever_ ruled that the Second Amendment included a right to individual gun ownership. It was always understood as it was written: Guns were allowed in individual hands as a means to supply the armed forces.
> 
> Here’s the _Milwaukee Independent_ looking at how Chief Justice Warren Burger discussed the Second Amendment.
> 
> That the Second Amendment exists at all is more an accident of timing than an attempt to put guns in the hands of every American.
> The amendment grew out of a fear that having a standing army would leave the nation open to depredations by an authoritarian leader, or that the nascent democracy would be overthrown by a military junta. To that end, they explicitly inserted the Second Amendment as an alternative means of providing national defense.
> 
> There were multiple drafts of the Second Amendment. Every one of them includes text explaining that this amendment exists only because it’s needed to provide for the nation’s defense.
> Just a year after the Constitution was ratified, George Washington nudged Congress to create an official U.S. military, but the still-fearful Congress limited that force to just few hundred soldiers and officers. It would be another six years before it was allowed to grow significantly. When war came in 1812 two things were immediately obvious: The number of soldiers then in the official U.S. military were far from enough to defend the nation, and the poorly organized civilian militias for which the Second Amendment was created were an absolute failure when it came to national defense.
> 
> In the next year, the professional military of the United States grew by over 300%. “Second Amendment solutions” were on their way out.
> The Second Amendment is failure. It _never _worked for its intended purposes. It was born from  the understandable fears of a new nation engaged in a radical new scheme. But it was a mistake. It may be the most costly mistake this nation has ever made other than failing to end slavery at the outset.
> 
> The right thing to do would be to recognize that mistake and pass a new amendment that simply ends the Second Amendment, just as the 18th Amendment was repealed by the 21st Amendment in 1933. (Take a drink.)
> 
> Instead, we get statements like this piece of profound ignorance. One that is wrong. Wrong. Wrong again. And then … still wrong.
> 
> 
> Recognizing that an actual repeal of the Second Amendment—while absolutely just—isn’t likely, the next best thing is to simply recognize that the right to individual gun ownership is _a lesser right_, one whose appearance in that useless amendment subjects it to practical constraint.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Second Amendment was a failure from the start, and should have been repealed 200 years ago
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as an unconstrained right. Speech has limits. Religion has limits. Assembly has limits. The idea that any of these things can be completely “free” of government oversight is a pipedream, and everyone from the founders to the...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dailykos.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Individual gun ownership rights are the result of a Supreme Court decision. Specifically Heller v DC
> 
> Just like abortion rights are the result of a Supreme Court decision. Specifically Roe v Wade
> 
> The current court is ready to take away Roe v Wade.
> 
> A future court can do the same with Heller v DC.


Wrong...

Couldnt be more wrong than a football bat.
The second ammendment was about fear of ANY regime...including the one that they were creating...becoming totalitarian and oppressive.   So that the people could rise up against any regime that the people found oppressive and not behaving as a representative government.


----------



## Harry Dresden

Rye Catcher said:


> Now I understand what being _postal is _all about.


yea skewy has some stupid threads....


----------



## Rye Catcher

Sunsettommy said:


> Notice you posted no argument against it.
> 
> You should eat more spinach first.


An argument needs to be posted before a rebuttal.  Your opinion is absurd, read the 2nd closely, and see there is no mention of guns.  Arms are in the times in Armories, and trained to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Read the next clause in Art I, Sec 8, Clause 15.


----------



## Rye Catcher

JohnDB said:


> Wrong...
> 
> Couldnt be more wrong than a football bat.
> The second ammendment was about fear of ANY regime...including the one that they were creating...becoming totalitarian and oppressive.   So that the people could rise up against any regime that the people found oppressive and not behaving as a representative government.


*So you are supporting and were supporting a Politician who lost an election, and bloviated to biddable fools to take Arms and overthrow an election, with no probative evidence, when three score and more courts rejected the election was stolen.

*


----------



## Sunsettommy

Rye Catcher said:


> An argument needs to be posted before a rebuttal.  Your opinion is absurd, read the 2nd closely, and see there is no mention of guns.  Arms are in the times in Armories, and trained to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
> 
> Read the next clause in Art I, Sec 8, Clause 15.



First you need to address what I said:



> "A future court can do the same with Heller v DC."



Not with the Second Amendment in place.

Try looking at the problem objectively then you will understand that Guns does NOT kill anyone, but deranged and hard criminals do it easily.

===

When are you going to address it?

Second amendment you irrationally say doesn't cover "guns":

Second Amendment​
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.

===

Merriam-Webster:

*"*to furnish or equip with weapons"

You really think the second amendment was needed to protect and keep human arms?


----------



## 2aguy

skews13 said:


> Laws about freedom of speech don’t just shift when it comes to content and context, they’re also constantly updated to address something else: technology. Radio. Movies. Television. The internet. Even comic books. All have sparked changes in what is permitted and how speech is regulated. But somehow, we pretend that guns are different; that words written when the most deadly weapon required a ramrod and black powder mean that we can’t make adjustments for a semi-automatic rifle and a 30-round clip.
> 
> The truth is that guns _are _different. Because the right to bear arms is _a lesser right_. A right that was never intended to exist at all.
> 
> What makes individual gun ownership a lesser right? It’s a right that only exists in the minds of a handful of hard-right Supreme Court justices who happen to be on the court at this moment. Until 2008, no federal court had _ever_ ruled that the Second Amendment included a right to individual gun ownership. It was always understood as it was written: Guns were allowed in individual hands as a means to supply the armed forces.
> 
> Here’s the _Milwaukee Independent_ looking at how Chief Justice Warren Burger discussed the Second Amendment.
> 
> That the Second Amendment exists at all is more an accident of timing than an attempt to put guns in the hands of every American.
> The amendment grew out of a fear that having a standing army would leave the nation open to depredations by an authoritarian leader, or that the nascent democracy would be overthrown by a military junta. To that end, they explicitly inserted the Second Amendment as an alternative means of providing national defense.
> 
> There were multiple drafts of the Second Amendment. Every one of them includes text explaining that this amendment exists only because it’s needed to provide for the nation’s defense.
> Just a year after the Constitution was ratified, George Washington nudged Congress to create an official U.S. military, but the still-fearful Congress limited that force to just few hundred soldiers and officers. It would be another six years before it was allowed to grow significantly. When war came in 1812 two things were immediately obvious: The number of soldiers then in the official U.S. military were far from enough to defend the nation, and the poorly organized civilian militias for which the Second Amendment was created were an absolute failure when it came to national defense.
> 
> In the next year, the professional military of the United States grew by over 300%. “Second Amendment solutions” were on their way out.
> The Second Amendment is failure. It _never _worked for its intended purposes. It was born from  the understandable fears of a new nation engaged in a radical new scheme. But it was a mistake. It may be the most costly mistake this nation has ever made other than failing to end slavery at the outset.
> 
> The right thing to do would be to recognize that mistake and pass a new amendment that simply ends the Second Amendment, just as the 18th Amendment was repealed by the 21st Amendment in 1933. (Take a drink.)
> 
> Instead, we get statements like this piece of profound ignorance. One that is wrong. Wrong. Wrong again. And then … still wrong.
> 
> 
> Recognizing that an actual repeal of the Second Amendment—while absolutely just—isn’t likely, the next best thing is to simply recognize that the right to individual gun ownership is _a lesser right_, one whose appearance in that useless amendment subjects it to practical constraint.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Second Amendment was a failure from the start, and should have been repealed 200 years ago
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as an unconstrained right. Speech has limits. Religion has limits. Assembly has limits. The idea that any of these things can be completely “free” of government oversight is a pipedream, and everyone from the founders to the...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dailykos.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Individual gun ownership rights are the result of a Supreme Court decision. Specifically Heller v DC
> 
> Just like abortion rights are the result of a Supreme Court decision. Specifically Roe v Wade
> 
> The current court is ready to take away Roe v Wade.
> 
> A future court can do the same with Heller v DC.



Except….no.  Scalia went through the long history of the Right to own and carry guns in Heller….please try reading it….or have someone with a brain read it to you


----------



## 2aguy

Rye Catcher said:


> An argument needs to be posted before a rebuttal.  Your opinion is absurd, read the 2nd closely, and see there is no mention of guns.  Arms are in the times in Armories, and trained to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
> 
> Read the next clause in Art I, Sec 8, Clause 15.


 I know you are an idiot…..you can stop trying to prove it to us…..


Arms do not mean guns?

Wow….just stop before you hurt yourself.


----------



## martybegan

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Prior to 2010 the Second Amendment applied only to the Federal government, not the states and local jurisdictions, who were at liberty to regulate firearms as they saw fit.
> 
> The mistake was to incorporate the Second Amendment to the states, contrary to the original intent of the Framers.



Almost all the other amendments have been incorporated, why would the 2nd be any different?

It's a right I have as a US Citizen and can't be taken away just because I am a Citizen of New York. 

Although they repeatedly try.


----------



## Sunsettommy

Rye Catcher said:


> An argument needs to be posted before a rebuttal.  Your opinion is absurd, read the 2nd closely, and see there is no mention of guns.  Arms are in the times in Armories, and trained to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
> 
> Read the next clause in Art I, Sec 8, Clause 15.



You need to read up on the Militia Clause because it refers to the people as clearly pointed out in this link:


The Heritage Foundation
Militia Clause​
Excerpt:

 ARTICLE I, SECTION 8, CLAUSE 15

The Congress shall have Power To ...provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions....

For the Founders, the militia arose from the posse comitatus, constituting the people as a whole and embodying the Anglo-American idea that the citizenry is the best enforcer of the law. “A militia when properly formed,” wrote Richard Henry Lee in his _Letters From the Federal Farmer _(1787–1788), “are in fact the people themselves . . . and include all men capable of bearing arms.” 

LINK


----------



## Polishprince

skews13 said:


> Laws about freedom of speech don’t just shift when it comes to content and context, they’re also constantly updated to address something else: technology. Radio. Movies. Television. The internet. Even comic books. All have sparked changes in what is permitted and how speech is regulated. But somehow, we pretend that guns are different; that words written when the most deadly weapon required a ramrod and black powder mean that we can’t make adjustments for a semi-automatic rifle and a 30-round clip.
> 
> The truth is that guns _are _different. Because the right to bear arms is _a lesser right_. A right that was never intended to exist at all.
> 
> What makes individual gun ownership a lesser right? It’s a right that only exists in the minds of a handful of hard-right Supreme Court justices who happen to be on the court at this moment. Until 2008, no federal court had _ever_ ruled that the Second Amendment included a right to individual gun ownership. It was always understood as it was written: Guns were allowed in individual hands as a means to supply the armed forces.
> 
> Here’s the _Milwaukee Independent_ looking at how Chief Justice Warren Burger discussed the Second Amendment.
> 
> That the Second Amendment exists at all is more an accident of timing than an attempt to put guns in the hands of every American.
> The amendment grew out of a fear that having a standing army would leave the nation open to depredations by an authoritarian leader, or that the nascent democracy would be overthrown by a military junta. To that end, they explicitly inserted the Second Amendment as an alternative means of providing national defense.
> 
> There were multiple drafts of the Second Amendment. Every one of them includes text explaining that this amendment exists only because it’s needed to provide for the nation’s defense.
> Just a year after the Constitution was ratified, George Washington nudged Congress to create an official U.S. military, but the still-fearful Congress limited that force to just few hundred soldiers and officers. It would be another six years before it was allowed to grow significantly. When war came in 1812 two things were immediately obvious: The number of soldiers then in the official U.S. military were far from enough to defend the nation, and the poorly organized civilian militias for which the Second Amendment was created were an absolute failure when it came to national defense.
> 
> In the next year, the professional military of the United States grew by over 300%. “Second Amendment solutions” were on their way out.
> The Second Amendment is failure. It _never _worked for its intended purposes. It was born from  the understandable fears of a new nation engaged in a radical new scheme. But it was a mistake. It may be the most costly mistake this nation has ever made other than failing to end slavery at the outset.
> 
> The right thing to do would be to recognize that mistake and pass a new amendment that simply ends the Second Amendment, just as the 18th Amendment was repealed by the 21st Amendment in 1933. (Take a drink.)
> 
> Instead, we get statements like this piece of profound ignorance. One that is wrong. Wrong. Wrong again. And then … still wrong.
> 
> 
> Recognizing that an actual repeal of the Second Amendment—while absolutely just—isn’t likely, the next best thing is to simply recognize that the right to individual gun ownership is _a lesser right_, one whose appearance in that useless amendment subjects it to practical constraint.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Second Amendment was a failure from the start, and should have been repealed 200 years ago
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as an unconstrained right. Speech has limits. Religion has limits. Assembly has limits. The idea that any of these things can be completely “free” of government oversight is a pipedream, and everyone from the founders to the...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dailykos.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Individual gun ownership rights are the result of a Supreme Court decision. Specifically Heller v DC
> 
> Just like abortion rights are the result of a Supreme Court decision. Specifically Roe v Wade
> 
> The current court is ready to take away Roe v Wade.
> 
> A future court can do the same with Heller v DC.




You don't get it at all, skews.



An armed citizenry is just good public policy,  regardless of how you want to mangle the 2nd Amendment.   


Remember this, and never forget.   Law breakers have no problem getting guns.   Backroom gun dealers operating out of barrooms and saloons and the trunks of their cars don't ask for ID or do background checks.


Gun control is only effective in disarming Law Abiders.   And Law Abiders just aren't a public safety hazard.


----------



## Vrenn

Billy_Bob said:


> SKews is a MORON...  The Declaration of Independence was very clear on the second amendment and why it exists.
> 
> Excerp:
> "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --*That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.* Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. *But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--"
> 
> 
> Source*



Believe it or not, that applied for the formation of the Continental Congress and was used again to abolish it to form the United States of America.  They found that the CC was equal to dishwater and didn't work and had to be thrown out and reintroduced as a stronger federal government.  They were right.  What came out is the US Constitution based on the Bill of Rights which was lifted from the British Bill of Rights dated 1689 for about the same reason that the US Bill of Rights was being adopted.  Unfortunately, the British rarely applied it to colonial states where the Monarch was unopposed.  

The 2nd amendment legacy goes all the way back to 1215, the Magna Carta.  The Magna Carta was the first time that it was written into law that a soldier, when leaving service, could keep his sword.  It also allowed civilians to own cannons.  War was expensive and any help the civilians could give to the king in supplying an army was greatly appreciated when a neighboring kingdom invaded.  Here is the reality.  Most Soldiers were Farmers who would take their swords home and reforge them into something more useful like a plow or farm tool.  As for the Cannons, it took a very rich person to have a fully functional cannon back then.   Usually, it was a Duke, Baron or the like.  The Cannon had to be kept up and fired on a regular basis.  On hard times, the Duke or Baron would have it reforged into something else.  You see, iron of that quality was scarce and expensive.

Civilian Weapons from 1215 to 1700 usually comprised of daggers, not firearms.  A Dagger had other uses other than killing.  Or a hunting knife.  But to be truthful, I would rather face a Dagger than a pissed off farmer with a Pike to dig a hole with.  When Firearms surfaced, they were single shot and it took time to reload them.  I would rather face a musket than an Indian with a quiver full of Arrows who can get off many more shots per minute just as accurate with equal or better range.  The 2nd Amendment didn't say anything about firearms because firearms were NOT the strongest weapons quite yet.  But it was the easiest for the founding fathers to use without developing any skills like shooting a bow and arrow.  So the 2nd amendment was no foul now harm at the time.

What it didn't predict was the 1851 Walker Colt.  The first multiple shot production weapon.  What followed was a huge increase in other weapons coming out.  Let's call it "The Weapons Revolution".  In 10 short years, the Gatlin Gun, the hotchiss Canon and the Breech Loader.  In fact, many old surplus single shot rifles   into the flintlocks were redone for the breech loader system for the Civil War.  But the Breech Loader for the Rifle was short lived.  It was replaced by the new Winchester and Henry Rifles which could fire faster, help at least 5 rounds (in the 45.100) and were lighter to carry.  These started to make their way onto the battle fields and into the west during those 10 years.  

The Walker Colt was such a huge problem, at the end of the war, soldiers could keep theirs if they had possession of them.  They went west.  Here is an exerpt
 https://gun-control.procon.org/history-of-gun-control/
*Despite images of the “Wild West” from movies, cities in the frontier often required visitors to check their guns with the sheriff before entering the town. [108] In Oct. 1876, Deadwood, Dakota Territory passed a law stating that no one could fire a gun without the mayor’s consent. [109] A sign in Dodge City, Kansas in 1879 read, “The Carrying of Fire Arms Strictly Prohibited.” [108] The first law passed in Dodge City was a gun control law that read “any person or persons found carrying concealed weapons in the city of Dodge or violating the laws of the State shall be dealt with according to law.” [108]*

They got tired of the drunken cowboys shooting up their towns and stray shots killing innocent men, women and children.  BTW, the OK Corral wasn't about Outlaws at all.  It was about the Clantons and Mcloweries refusing to disarm to enter into Tombstone.  In Dallas, if you were wearing a gun, you got one chance.  If you didn't turn it over, the Marshal just shot and killed you.  Things did finally settle down once the cowboys decided it was to their best interest to cooperate.  

By today's standard, that would be going too far.  But they let the problem get way out of hand and did what they felt they needed to do.  I don't push taking away sane American's firearms.  But I do say that there is a time and a place for those firearms.  Firearms in your home or place of business will always be the exception.  (Heller V DC),  But I do hold that it should NOT be up to the Federal Government on how a state rules it's firearms unless a State becomes a huge problem in how they distribute their firearms.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Billy_Bob said:


> Wrong... The states have no purview over weapons.  The term "shall not be infringed" means exactly that. Hands off.. as it is a right that no one can touch, not even the states.


No, this is wrong.

States' rights dogma gives the states the authority to recognize an individual right to possess a firearm. 

Clearly conservatives don't support states' rights.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

skews13 said:


> Laws about freedom of speech don’t just shift when it comes to content and context, they’re also constantly updated to address something else: technology. Radio. Movies. Television. The internet. Even comic books. All have sparked changes in what is permitted and how speech is regulated. But somehow, we pretend that guns are different; that words written when the most deadly weapon required a ramrod and black powder mean that we can’t make adjustments for a semi-automatic rifle and a 30-round clip.
> 
> The truth is that guns _are _different. Because the right to bear arms is _a lesser right_. A right that was never intended to exist at all.
> 
> What makes individual gun ownership a lesser right? It’s a right that only exists in the minds of a handful of hard-right Supreme Court justices who happen to be on the court at this moment. Until 2008, no federal court had _ever_ ruled that the Second Amendment included a right to individual gun ownership. It was always understood as it was written: Guns were allowed in individual hands as a means to supply the armed forces.
> 
> Here’s the _Milwaukee Independent_ looking at how Chief Justice Warren Burger discussed the Second Amendment.
> 
> That the Second Amendment exists at all is more an accident of timing than an attempt to put guns in the hands of every American.
> The amendment grew out of a fear that having a standing army would leave the nation open to depredations by an authoritarian leader, or that the nascent democracy would be overthrown by a military junta. To that end, they explicitly inserted the Second Amendment as an alternative means of providing national defense.
> 
> There were multiple drafts of the Second Amendment. Every one of them includes text explaining that this amendment exists only because it’s needed to provide for the nation’s defense.
> Just a year after the Constitution was ratified, George Washington nudged Congress to create an official U.S. military, but the still-fearful Congress limited that force to just few hundred soldiers and officers. It would be another six years before it was allowed to grow significantly. When war came in 1812 two things were immediately obvious: The number of soldiers then in the official U.S. military were far from enough to defend the nation, and the poorly organized civilian militias for which the Second Amendment was created were an absolute failure when it came to national defense.
> 
> In the next year, the professional military of the United States grew by over 300%. “Second Amendment solutions” were on their way out.
> The Second Amendment is failure. It _never _worked for its intended purposes. It was born from  the understandable fears of a new nation engaged in a radical new scheme. But it was a mistake. It may be the most costly mistake this nation has ever made other than failing to end slavery at the outset.
> 
> The right thing to do would be to recognize that mistake and pass a new amendment that simply ends the Second Amendment, just as the 18th Amendment was repealed by the 21st Amendment in 1933. (Take a drink.)
> 
> Instead, we get statements like this piece of profound ignorance. One that is wrong. Wrong. Wrong again. And then … still wrong.
> 
> 
> Recognizing that an actual repeal of the Second Amendment—while absolutely just—isn’t likely, the next best thing is to simply recognize that the right to individual gun ownership is _a lesser right_, one whose appearance in that useless amendment subjects it to practical constraint.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Second Amendment was a failure from the start, and should have been repealed 200 years ago
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as an unconstrained right. Speech has limits. Religion has limits. Assembly has limits. The idea that any of these things can be completely “free” of government oversight is a pipedream, and everyone from the founders to the...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dailykos.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Individual gun ownership rights are the result of a Supreme Court decision. Specifically Heller v DC
> 
> Just like abortion rights are the result of a Supreme Court decision. Specifically Roe v Wade
> 
> The current court is ready to take away Roe v Wade.
> 
> A future court can do the same with Heller v DC.


The Second Amendment was successful in protecting the right of the states to regulate firearms as they saw fit, without interference from the Federal government, until 2010.


----------



## Papageorgio

skews13 said:


> Laws about freedom of speech don’t just shift when it comes to content and context, they’re also constantly updated to address something else: technology. Radio. Movies. Television. The internet. Even comic books. All have sparked changes in what is permitted and how speech is regulated. But somehow, we pretend that guns are different; that words written when the most deadly weapon required a ramrod and black powder mean that we can’t make adjustments for a semi-automatic rifle and a 30-round clip.
> 
> The truth is that guns _are _different. Because the right to bear arms is _a lesser right_. A right that was never intended to exist at all.
> 
> What makes individual gun ownership a lesser right? It’s a right that only exists in the minds of a handful of hard-right Supreme Court justices who happen to be on the court at this moment. Until 2008, no federal court had _ever_ ruled that the Second Amendment included a right to individual gun ownership. It was always understood as it was written: Guns were allowed in individual hands as a means to supply the armed forces.
> 
> Here’s the _Milwaukee Independent_ looking at how Chief Justice Warren Burger discussed the Second Amendment.
> 
> That the Second Amendment exists at all is more an accident of timing than an attempt to put guns in the hands of every American.
> The amendment grew out of a fear that having a standing army would leave the nation open to depredations by an authoritarian leader, or that the nascent democracy would be overthrown by a military junta. To that end, they explicitly inserted the Second Amendment as an alternative means of providing national defense.
> 
> There were multiple drafts of the Second Amendment. Every one of them includes text explaining that this amendment exists only because it’s needed to provide for the nation’s defense.
> Just a year after the Constitution was ratified, George Washington nudged Congress to create an official U.S. military, but the still-fearful Congress limited that force to just few hundred soldiers and officers. It would be another six years before it was allowed to grow significantly. When war came in 1812 two things were immediately obvious: The number of soldiers then in the official U.S. military were far from enough to defend the nation, and the poorly organized civilian militias for which the Second Amendment was created were an absolute failure when it came to national defense.
> 
> In the next year, the professional military of the United States grew by over 300%. “Second Amendment solutions” were on their way out.
> The Second Amendment is failure. It _never _worked for its intended purposes. It was born from  the understandable fears of a new nation engaged in a radical new scheme. But it was a mistake. It may be the most costly mistake this nation has ever made other than failing to end slavery at the outset.
> 
> The right thing to do would be to recognize that mistake and pass a new amendment that simply ends the Second Amendment, just as the 18th Amendment was repealed by the 21st Amendment in 1933. (Take a drink.)
> 
> Instead, we get statements like this piece of profound ignorance. One that is wrong. Wrong. Wrong again. And then … still wrong.
> 
> 
> Recognizing that an actual repeal of the Second Amendment—while absolutely just—isn’t likely, the next best thing is to simply recognize that the right to individual gun ownership is _a lesser right_, one whose appearance in that useless amendment subjects it to practical constraint.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Second Amendment was a failure from the start, and should have been repealed 200 years ago
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as an unconstrained right. Speech has limits. Religion has limits. Assembly has limits. The idea that any of these things can be completely “free” of government oversight is a pipedream, and everyone from the founders to the...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dailykos.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Individual gun ownership rights are the result of a Supreme Court decision. Specifically Heller v DC
> 
> Just like abortion rights are the result of a Supreme Court decision. Specifically Roe v Wade
> 
> The current court is ready to take away Roe v Wade.
> 
> A future court can do the same with Heller v DC.


Sorry, the Daily Kos is a far left website with no integrity. Sad, you only look at one side of an issue.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Sunsettommy said:


> Actually, the Amendment applies to everybody.


The states should determine how to regulate firearms, not tyrants in black robes legislating from the bench ignoring the will of the people.


----------



## Sunsettommy

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The states should determine how to regulate firearms, not tyrants in black robes legislating from the bench ignoring the will of the people.



They already do.....


----------



## Rye Catcher

JustAGuy1 said:


> ^^^^Idiot  Gram


Nah, this wasn't posted to you.  Of course you are a gun lover, and gun lovers let postal workers flip out and kill others in their postal office, along with children in schools, and in other situations for those who buy guns legally and for fun.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

hadit said:


> Actually, the SC began applying the Constitution to the states after the 14th Amendment was ratified, and that includes the 2nd. That happened in 1868, a little earlier than your date of 2010.


Incorrect. 

The Second Amendment wasn't incorporated to the states until 2010, see McDonald v Chicago. 

That's why Heller addressed gun laws in DC, under Federal jurisdiction.


----------



## Rye Catcher

Calypso Jones said:


> well as we say in the South....'Bless Your Heart'.


I suppose, but those of us in California west of the Sierra have empathy.


----------



## Rye Catcher

martybegan said:


> Almost all the other amendments have been incorporated, why would the 2nd be any different?
> 
> It's a right I have as a US Citizen and can't be taken away just because I am a Citizen of New York.
> 
> Although they repeatedly try.


Move


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

hadit said:


> Actually, the SC began applying the Constitution to the states after the 14th Amendment was ratified, and that includes the 2nd. That happened in 1868, a little earlier than your date of 2010.


And the entire Bill of Rights has not been incorporated to the states, such as the Third Amendment.


----------



## hadit

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> And the entire Bill of Rights has not been incorporated to the states, such as the Third Amendment.


That would make Roe even more likely to be overturned, as there is no right to abortion incorporated to the states.


----------



## JohnDB

Rye Catcher said:


> *So you are supporting and were supporting a Politician who lost an election, and bloviated to biddable fools to take Arms and overthrow an election, with no probative evidence, when three score and more courts rejected the election was stolen.*


Nope.  
I'm not.   I'm just saying that you are wrong.   I'm not endorsing any other group,  party, or candidate.


----------



## Harry Dresden

Rye Catcher said:


> Nah, this wasn't posted to you.  Of course you are a gun lover, and gun lovers let postal workers flip out and kill others in their postal office, along with children in schools, and in other situations for those who buy guns legally and for fun.


when i was working in the PO many of those guys owned guns....even the ones who identified as democrats.....


----------



## Harry Dresden

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The states should determine how to regulate firearms, not tyrants in black robes legislating from the bench ignoring the will of the people.


now they are tyrants.....when they rule in your favor they then are judges...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Pellinore said:


> For starters, there is no such thing as a "lesser right."  That was invented by the Daily Kos writer to try and diminish the legitimacy of Heller.  I mean, c'mon.
> 
> But, the rest of the OP is largely correct.  The Second Amendment was written by men in the 18th century, to whom the term "bear arms" meant to serve in a State militia.  Madison and the First Congress debated the points based on the likes of when King James II tried to dismantle the local militias so his tax-collecting royal soldiers could muscle the people out of tax money; there was no mention in any of the supplemental notes or in the arguments themselves about private ownership.  None.  It was like this for almost our entire history.
> 
> It was Heller in 2008 that applied it to private ownership.  As it is a Supreme Court ruling, it can be overturned, either by legislation or by a later Supreme Court ruling, just as people are now thinking will happen to Roe v. Wade.  It is the ruling we live under now, but in the future it absolutely can be re-litigated and re-interpreted as applying only to, for example, the National Guard.



*the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.*

Not the right of the militia.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Lastamender said:


> You should have been alive 200 years ago. Someone would have shot you.



Maybe tarred and feathered first.


----------



## Calypso Jones

There are more guns in the Hands of LawaBiding citizens than there are citizens in the US.   400,000,000.  to be exact.  Keep that in mind.  Good people...and tyrants.

Gun Restrictions Handicap Law-Abiding Citizens Under the Guise of Making Them Safer


----------



## martybegan

Rye Catcher said:


> Move



Shouldn't have to as the 2nd is my right as a US citizen.

Maybe if all prog gun control proposals didn't look like NYC laws, where it takes 3-6 months and $500 in fees just to keep a fucking revolver in your own house or apartment, we would trust you fucking assholes.


----------



## JustAGuy1

Rye Catcher said:


> Nah, this wasn't posted to you.  Of course you are a gun lover, and gun lovers let postal workers flip out and kill others in their postal office, along with children in schools, and in other situations for those who buy guns legally and for fun.



I only have 2 12 gauges, Pheasant. Guns aren't things to love or hate, they are tools. Fact, there is *no* Law you could pass that would stop this. Not one, but  Progs are about virtue signaling, nothing more.


----------



## JustAGuy1

Rye Catcher said:


> I suppose, but those of us in California west of the Sierra have empathy.



"Empathy"
 the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another of either the past or present without having the feelings, thoughts, and experience fully communicated in an objectively explicit manner.

Virtue signaling, nothing more.


----------



## Rye Catcher

JustAGuy1 said:


> "Empathy"
> the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another of either the past or present without having the feelings, thoughts, and experience fully communicated in an objectively explicit manner.
> 
> Virtue signaling, nothing more.


Nothing more, yeah that's true in the minds of those who kill by sport and support putting a gun into the hands of every person.


----------



## Pellinore

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.*
> 
> Not the right of the militia.


Yeah.  Back then, "bear arms" meant to carry it into battle, not just to pick it up.  

To them, carrying your huntin' rifle off into the woods every day didn't count as "bearing arms."  It referred specifically to militia use.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Pellinore said:


> Yeah.  Back then, "bear arms" meant to carry it into battle, not just to pick it up.
> 
> To them, carrying your huntin' rifle off into the woods every day didn't count as "bearing arms."  It referred specifically to militia use.



The people had the right to carry their arms into battle? Cool!

*It referred specifically to militia use.*

Which is why it said the right of the people, not the right of the militia.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

martybegan said:


> Almost all the other amendments have been incorporated, why would the 2nd be any different?
> 
> It's a right I have as a US Citizen and can't be taken away just because I am a Citizen of New York.
> 
> Although they repeatedly try.


It was the original intent of the Framers that the Second Amendment protect the states from Federal interference and overreach – nothing more.

_Heller_ was a partisan contrivance intended to begin the process of undermining state firearm regulatory measures conservatives didn’t like.

Because the Second Amendment safeguarded a collective right and the right of the states from Federal interference, the _Heller_ Court fabricated an individual right unconnected to militia service.

The _McDonald_ Court in 2010 continued that process by incorporating the Second Amendment to the states and local jurisdictions, in violation of states’ rights, jeopardizing state firearm regulatory measures reflecting the will of the people of the states.

With the Second Amendment now incorporated, the partisan right is at liberty to use the courts to attack and overturn state firearm regulatory measures Republicans disapprove of.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.*
> 
> Not the right of the militia.


Wrong.

The Second Amendment was a collective – not individual – right as intended by the Framers; a right that shall not be infringed upon by the Federal government, ensuring the autonomy of state militias and states’ rights.

We know this to be true because the sole purpose of the _Heller_ case was to eliminate the collective right; if the Second Amendment recognized an individual right from the outset there’d be no need for _Heller_.


----------



## martybegan

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> It was the original intent of the Framers that the Second Amendment protect the states from Federal interference and overreach – nothing more.
> 
> _Heller_ was a partisan contrivance intended to begin the process of undermining state firearm regulatory measures conservatives didn’t like.
> 
> Because the Second Amendment safeguarded a collective right and the right of the states from Federal interference, the _Heller_ Court fabricated an individual right unconnected to militia service.
> 
> The _McDonald_ Court in 2010 continued that process by incorporating the Second Amendment to the states and local jurisdictions, in violation of states’ rights, jeopardizing state firearm regulatory measures reflecting the will of the people of the states.
> 
> With the Second Amendment now incorporated, the partisan right is at liberty to use the courts to attack and overturn state firearm regulatory measures Republicans disapprove of.



Militias were part of the framers intent for State protection, hence the FIRST part of the 2nd amendment. 

The SECOND part of the amendment gives the PEOPLE the right to keep and bear arms. 

The PROBLEM is States and Cities like NYC implementing de facto bans via OVER regulation, such as needing to wait 3-6 months and pay $500 just to keep a revolver around your own home or apartment. How is that not infringement?

Notice also the 2nd amendment doesn't just restrict CONGRESS from making rules over firearms, like it says in the 1st amendment about speech freedoms and religious freedoms. the 2nd merely gives a right to THE PEOPLE and says it must not be infringed.


----------



## martybegan

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Wrong.
> 
> The Second Amendment was a collective – not individual – right as intended by the Framers; a right that shall not be infringed upon by the Federal government, ensuring the autonomy of state militias and states’ rights.
> 
> We know this to be true because the sole purpose of the _Heller_ case was to eliminate the collective right; if the Second Amendment recognized an individual right from the outset there’d be no need for _Heller_.



You still ignore the 2nd part, AFTER the comma, which gives the Right to Keep and Bear Arms to the PEOPLE.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The Second Amendment was a collective – not individual – right as intended by the Framers;



Of course it was.

_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._

That's why it says "the right of the people" not "the right of the militia".


----------



## Peace

Rye Catcher said:


> Now I understand what being _postal is _all about.


It was a saying back in the late 1980’s to early 1990’s about delivery people for the post office snapping…


----------



## Peace

The issue the left will face is you do not have the States willing to Amend the Constitution, so the discussion is moot.

You can do State to State laws that could limit certain firearms and even ban at the Federal again for certain firearms or make the requirements for certain firearms more stringent by classifying certain firearms in the same class as the Uzi but with Manchin in your way this will be impossible…


----------



## JustAGuy1

Rye Catcher said:


> Nothing more, yeah that's true in the minds of those who kill by sport and support putting a gun into the hands of every person.



You don't have feathers, you're safe. Virtue signaling, nothing more what's funny is that you sincerely can't that it is no different that "Thoughts and Prayers".


----------



## hadit

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The states should determine how to regulate firearms, not tyrants in black robes legislating from the bench ignoring the will of the people.


If the will of the people is strong enough, the Constitution can be amended. Until then, it is the will of the people to obey the Constitution, no whatever your personal preference happens to be.


----------



## Pellinore

Toddsterpatriot said:


> The people had the right to carry their arms into battle? Cool!
> 
> *It referred specifically to militia use.*
> 
> Which is why it said the right of the people, not the right of the militia.


Yes, they did!  They were concerned that the federal government would disband the state militias, then use their goons to collect taxes and stuff.

Ask yourself this: Why didn't the framers of the Bill of Rights use the word "person," as they did in the Fifth Amendment?  Why not "the right of a person"?

The First uses "people" to refer to assembly, which is by definition plural.  The Third says "Owner" rather than "Owners" because it is individual, about the singular owner of one house.  The Fourth guarantees "The right of the people to be secure in their persons," with the last two words confirming that again, "people" is plural.  The Sixth uses "his," and not "their."  The Ninth and Tenth use the word "people" to refer to the State governments.

"People" means a collective group of people here.  If they were referring to each individual person, it would have read "the right of a person."

They never debated individual ownership; it never crossed their minds or their desks.  They were always talking about the right of the State to assemble its militia on the village green, to resist the might of a central tyrant.


----------



## hadit

Pellinore said:


> Yes, they did!  They were concerned that the federal government would disband the state militias, then use their goons to collect taxes and stuff.
> 
> Ask yourself this: Why didn't the framers of the Bill of Rights use the word "person," as they did in the Fifth Amendment?  Why not "the right of a person"?
> 
> The First uses "people" to refer to assembly, which is by definition plural.  The Third says "Owner" rather than "Owners" because it is individual, about the singular owner of one house.  The Fourth guarantees "The right of the people to be secure in their persons," with the last two words confirming that again, "people" is plural.  The Sixth uses "his," and not "their."  The Ninth and Tenth use the word "people" to refer to the State governments.
> 
> "People" means a collective group of people here.  If they were referring to each individual person, it would have read "the right of a person."
> 
> They never debated individual ownership; it never crossed their minds or their desks.  They were always talking about the right of the State to assemble its militia on the village green, to resist the might of a central tyrant.


The Supreme Court reads that differently.


----------



## martybegan

Pellinore said:


> Yes, they did!  They were concerned that the federal government would disband the state militias, then use their goons to collect taxes and stuff.
> 
> Ask yourself this: Why didn't the framers of the Bill of Rights use the word "person," as they did in the Fifth Amendment?  Why not "the right of a person"?
> 
> The First uses "people" to refer to assembly, which is by definition plural.  The Third says "Owner" rather than "Owners" because it is individual, about the singular owner of one house.  The Fourth guarantees "The right of the people to be secure in their persons," with the last two words confirming that again, "people" is plural.  The Sixth uses "his," and not "their."  The Ninth and Tenth use the word "people" to refer to the State governments.
> 
> "People" means a collective group of people here.  If they were referring to each individual person, it would have read "the right of a person."
> 
> They never debated individual ownership; it never crossed their minds or their desks.  They were always talking about the right of the State to assemble its militia on the village green, to resist the might of a central tyrant.



And those "people" brought their own military grade weapons with them, they owned them. 

If the framers wanted to limit the right to the Militia they wouldn't have needed the 2nd part of the 2nd to say "the people", they just would have said "the State" or the "Militia" if it was a collective right.


----------



## martybegan

hadit said:


> The Supreme Court reads that differently.



And only had to answer it when the left decided it was a "collective right", not because it actually only is a collective right.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Pellinore said:


> Yes, they did!  They were concerned that the federal government would disband the state militias, then use their goons to collect taxes and stuff.
> 
> Ask yourself this: Why didn't the framers of the Bill of Rights use the word "person," as they did in the Fifth Amendment?  Why not "the right of a person"?
> 
> The First uses "people" to refer to assembly, which is by definition plural.  The Third says "Owner" rather than "Owners" because it is individual, about the singular owner of one house.  The Fourth guarantees "The right of the people to be secure in their persons," with the last two words confirming that again, "people" is plural.  The Sixth uses "his," and not "their."  The Ninth and Tenth use the word "people" to refer to the State governments.
> 
> "People" means a collective group of people here.  If they were referring to each individual person, it would have read "the right of a person."
> 
> They never debated individual ownership; it never crossed their minds or their desks.  They were always talking about the right of the State to assemble its militia on the village green, to resist the might of a central tyrant.



*Ask yourself this: Why didn't the framers of the Bill of Rights use the word "person," as they did in the Fifth Amendment? Why not "the right of a person"?*

Why do you feel the right of the people doesn't mean the right of a person?

*The First uses "people" to refer to assembly, which is by definition plural.*

The 'people", plural, have the right to keep and bear arms.

*"People" means a collective group of people here. *

Yes, all the people have the right.

*If they were referring to each individual person, it would have read "the right of a person."*

All the individual persons have the right.

*The Ninth and Tenth use the word "people" to refer to the State governments.*

I disagree.

_reserved to the States respectively, *or* to the people._

*"People" means a collective group of people here.  If they were referring to each individual person, it would have read "the right of a person."*


If they meant the militia or the state had the right, not the people, they would have said the militia or the state.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Pellinore said:


> Yes, they did!  They were concerned that the federal government would disband the state militias, then use their goons to collect taxes and stuff.
> 
> Ask yourself this: Why didn't the framers of the Bill of Rights use the word "person," as they did in the Fifth Amendment?  Why not "the right of a person"?
> 
> The First uses "people" to refer to assembly, which is by definition plural.  The Third says "Owner" rather than "Owners" because it is individual, about the singular owner of one house.  The Fourth guarantees "The right of the people to be secure in their persons," with the last two words confirming that again, "people" is plural.  The Sixth uses "his," and not "their."  The Ninth and Tenth use the word "people" to refer to the State governments.
> 
> "People" means a collective group of people here.  If they were referring to each individual person, it would have read "the right of a person."
> 
> They never debated individual ownership; it never crossed their minds or their desks.  They were always talking about the right of the State to assemble its militia on the village green, to resist the might of a central tyrant.



*The First uses "people" to refer to assembly, which is by definition plural. *

Which doesn't mean a single person has no right. 
Each person has the right to assemble with every other person.


----------



## badbob85037

skews13 said:


> Laws about freedom of speech don’t just shift when it comes to content and context, they’re also constantly updated to address something else: technology. Radio. Movies. Television. The internet. Even comic books. All have sparked changes in what is permitted and how speech is regulated. But somehow, we pretend that guns are different; that words written when the most deadly weapon required a ramrod and black powder mean that we can’t make adjustments for a semi-automatic rifle and a 30-round clip.
> 
> The truth is that guns _are _different. Because the right to bear arms is _a lesser right_. A right that was never intended to exist at all.
> 
> What makes individual gun ownership a lesser right? It’s a right that only exists in the minds of a handful of hard-right Supreme Court justices who happen to be on the court at this moment. Until 2008, no federal court had _ever_ ruled that the Second Amendment included a right to individual gun ownership. It was always understood as it was written: Guns were allowed in individual hands as a means to supply the armed forces.
> 
> Here’s the _Milwaukee Independent_ looking at how Chief Justice Warren Burger discussed the Second Amendment.
> 
> That the Second Amendment exists at all is more an accident of timing than an attempt to put guns in the hands of every American.
> The amendment grew out of a fear that having a standing army would leave the nation open to depredations by an authoritarian leader, or that the nascent democracy would be overthrown by a military junta. To that end, they explicitly inserted the Second Amendment as an alternative means of providing national defense.
> 
> There were multiple drafts of the Second Amendment. Every one of them includes text explaining that this amendment exists only because it’s needed to provide for the nation’s defense.
> Just a year after the Constitution was ratified, George Washington nudged Congress to create an official U.S. military, but the still-fearful Congress limited that force to just few hundred soldiers and officers. It would be another six years before it was allowed to grow significantly. When war came in 1812 two things were immediately obvious: The number of soldiers then in the official U.S. military were far from enough to defend the nation, and the poorly organized civilian militias for which the Second Amendment was created were an absolute failure when it came to national defense.
> 
> In the next year, the professional military of the United States grew by over 300%. “Second Amendment solutions” were on their way out.
> The Second Amendment is failure. It _never _worked for its intended purposes. It was born from  the understandable fears of a new nation engaged in a radical new scheme. But it was a mistake. It may be the most costly mistake this nation has ever made other than failing to end slavery at the outset.
> 
> The right thing to do would be to recognize that mistake and pass a new amendment that simply ends the Second Amendment, just as the 18th Amendment was repealed by the 21st Amendment in 1933. (Take a drink.)
> 
> Instead, we get statements like this piece of profound ignorance. One that is wrong. Wrong. Wrong again. And then … still wrong.
> 
> 
> Recognizing that an actual repeal of the Second Amendment—while absolutely just—isn’t likely, the next best thing is to simply recognize that the right to individual gun ownership is _a lesser right_, one whose appearance in that useless amendment subjects it to practical constraint.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Second Amendment was a failure from the start, and should have been repealed 200 years ago
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as an unconstrained right. Speech has limits. Religion has limits. Assembly has limits. The idea that any of these things can be completely “free” of government oversight is a pipedream, and everyone from the founders to the...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dailykos.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Individual gun ownership rights are the result of a Supreme Court decision. Specifically Heller v DC
> 
> Just like abortion rights are the result of a Supreme Court decision. Specifically Roe v Wade
> 
> The current court is ready to take away Roe v Wade.
> 
> A future court can do the same with Heller v DC.


From your long rant all I can say is fuck you very much. Leave the country and try to let  the door hit you in the ass. Buy em books, send them to school and they still haven't a clue, eat shit, and bother people. A LESSER RIGHT What an idiot is that why it is the Second Amendment?  Get out of my country!


----------



## Polishprince

skews13 said:


> Laws about freedom of speech don’t just shift when it comes to content and context, they’re also constantly updated to address something else: technology. Radio. Movies. Television. The internet. Even comic books. All have sparked changes in what is permitted and how speech is regulated. But somehow, we pretend that guns are different; that words written when the most deadly weapon required a ramrod and black powder mean that we can’t make adjustments for a semi-automatic rifle and a 30-round clip.
> 
> The truth is that guns _are _different. Because the right to bear arms is _a lesser right_. A right that was never intended to exist at all.
> 
> What makes individual gun ownership a lesser right? It’s a right that only exists in the minds of a handful of hard-right Supreme Court justices who happen to be on the court at this moment. Until 2008, no federal court had _ever_ ruled that the Second Amendment included a right to individual gun ownership. It was always understood as it was written: Guns were allowed in individual hands as a means to supply the armed forces.
> 
> Here’s the _Milwaukee Independent_ looking at how Chief Justice Warren Burger discussed the Second Amendment.
> 
> That the Second Amendment exists at all is more an accident of timing than an attempt to put guns in the hands of every American.
> The amendment grew out of a fear that having a standing army would leave the nation open to depredations by an authoritarian leader, or that the nascent democracy would be overthrown by a military junta. To that end, they explicitly inserted the Second Amendment as an alternative means of providing national defense.
> 
> There were multiple drafts of the Second Amendment. Every one of them includes text explaining that this amendment exists only because it’s needed to provide for the nation’s defense.
> Just a year after the Constitution was ratified, George Washington nudged Congress to create an official U.S. military, but the still-fearful Congress limited that force to just few hundred soldiers and officers. It would be another six years before it was allowed to grow significantly. When war came in 1812 two things were immediately obvious: The number of soldiers then in the official U.S. military were far from enough to defend the nation, and the poorly organized civilian militias for which the Second Amendment was created were an absolute failure when it came to national defense.
> 
> In the next year, the professional military of the United States grew by over 300%. “Second Amendment solutions” were on their way out.
> The Second Amendment is failure. It _never _worked for its intended purposes. It was born from  the understandable fears of a new nation engaged in a radical new scheme. But it was a mistake. It may be the most costly mistake this nation has ever made other than failing to end slavery at the outset.
> 
> The right thing to do would be to recognize that mistake and pass a new amendment that simply ends the Second Amendment, just as the 18th Amendment was repealed by the 21st Amendment in 1933. (Take a drink.)
> 
> Instead, we get statements like this piece of profound ignorance. One that is wrong. Wrong. Wrong again. And then … still wrong.
> 
> 
> Recognizing that an actual repeal of the Second Amendment—while absolutely just—isn’t likely, the next best thing is to simply recognize that the right to individual gun ownership is _a lesser right_, one whose appearance in that useless amendment subjects it to practical constraint.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Second Amendment was a failure from the start, and should have been repealed 200 years ago
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as an unconstrained right. Speech has limits. Religion has limits. Assembly has limits. The idea that any of these things can be completely “free” of government oversight is a pipedream, and everyone from the founders to the...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dailykos.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Individual gun ownership rights are the result of a Supreme Court decision. Specifically Heller v DC
> 
> Just like abortion rights are the result of a Supreme Court decision. Specifically Roe v Wade
> 
> The current court is ready to take away Roe v Wade.
> 
> A future court can do the same with Heller v DC.




The liberals always interpreted the 2nd Amendment as giving the Armed Forces the right to bear arms- not the people.

So, as a lib, how can you say its a failure?    If we dump the 2nd, won't the militia, aka the US Army, Navy and Marines, have to surrender their weapons?  And how would that work?


----------



## Rambunctious

In late 2018, Trump made one of his biggest gun policy moves: He banned bump stocks — an add-on device meant to simulate near-automatic rates of fire on conventional guns. The devices came under scrutiny after a shooter in Las Vegas used a cache of bump-stock equipped rifles to kill 60 people and wound 411 others in 2017.


----------



## toobfreak

CrusaderFrank said:


> Move to Canada


Worse, not a single person agrees with this crackpot seditious anti-American rant except one person:  a new moderator!


----------



## bripat9643

Rye Catcher said:


> There is no right to murder children in school classrooms.


That's true.  That doesn't alter the fact that we do have the right to bear arms.


----------



## bripat9643

badbob85037 said:


> From your long rant all I can say is fuck you very much. Leave the country and try to let  the door hit you in the ass. Buy em books, send them to school and they still haven't a clue, eat shit, and bother people. A LESSER RIGHT What an idiot is that why it is the Second Amendment?  Get out of my country!



Where is the term "lessor right" mentioned in the Constitution?  The OP is a total load of nonsense.


----------



## Captain Caveman

skews13 said:


> Laws about freedom of speech don’t just shift when it comes to content and context, they’re also constantly updated to address something else: technology. Radio. Movies. Television. The internet. Even comic books. All have sparked changes in what is permitted and how speech is regulated. But somehow, we pretend that guns are different; that words written when the most deadly weapon required a ramrod and black powder mean that we can’t make adjustments for a semi-automatic rifle and a 30-round clip.
> 
> The truth is that guns _are _different. Because the right to bear arms is _a lesser right_. A right that was never intended to exist at all.
> 
> What makes individual gun ownership a lesser right? It’s a right that only exists in the minds of a handful of hard-right Supreme Court justices who happen to be on the court at this moment. Until 2008, no federal court had _ever_ ruled that the Second Amendment included a right to individual gun ownership. It was always understood as it was written: Guns were allowed in individual hands as a means to supply the armed forces.
> 
> Here’s the _Milwaukee Independent_ looking at how Chief Justice Warren Burger discussed the Second Amendment.
> 
> That the Second Amendment exists at all is more an accident of timing than an attempt to put guns in the hands of every American.
> The amendment grew out of a fear that having a standing army would leave the nation open to depredations by an authoritarian leader, or that the nascent democracy would be overthrown by a military junta. To that end, they explicitly inserted the Second Amendment as an alternative means of providing national defense.
> 
> There were multiple drafts of the Second Amendment. Every one of them includes text explaining that this amendment exists only because it’s needed to provide for the nation’s defense.
> Just a year after the Constitution was ratified, George Washington nudged Congress to create an official U.S. military, but the still-fearful Congress limited that force to just few hundred soldiers and officers. It would be another six years before it was allowed to grow significantly. When war came in 1812 two things were immediately obvious: The number of soldiers then in the official U.S. military were far from enough to defend the nation, and the poorly organized civilian militias for which the Second Amendment was created were an absolute failure when it came to national defense.
> 
> In the next year, the professional military of the United States grew by over 300%. “Second Amendment solutions” were on their way out.
> The Second Amendment is failure. It _never _worked for its intended purposes. It was born from  the understandable fears of a new nation engaged in a radical new scheme. But it was a mistake. It may be the most costly mistake this nation has ever made other than failing to end slavery at the outset.
> 
> The right thing to do would be to recognize that mistake and pass a new amendment that simply ends the Second Amendment, just as the 18th Amendment was repealed by the 21st Amendment in 1933. (Take a drink.)
> 
> Instead, we get statements like this piece of profound ignorance. One that is wrong. Wrong. Wrong again. And then … still wrong.
> 
> 
> Recognizing that an actual repeal of the Second Amendment—while absolutely just—isn’t likely, the next best thing is to simply recognize that the right to individual gun ownership is _a lesser right_, one whose appearance in that useless amendment subjects it to practical constraint.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Second Amendment was a failure from the start, and should have been repealed 200 years ago
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as an unconstrained right. Speech has limits. Religion has limits. Assembly has limits. The idea that any of these things can be completely “free” of government oversight is a pipedream, and everyone from the founders to the...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dailykos.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Individual gun ownership rights are the result of a Supreme Court decision. Specifically Heller v DC
> 
> Just like abortion rights are the result of a Supreme Court decision. Specifically Roe v Wade
> 
> The current court is ready to take away Roe v Wade.
> 
> A future court can do the same with Heller v DC.


Well said.


----------



## Flash

skews13 said:


> Laws about freedom of speech don’t just shift when it comes to content and context, they’re also constantly updated to address something else: technology. Radio. Movies. Television. The internet. Even comic books. All have sparked changes in what is permitted and how speech is regulated. But somehow, we pretend that guns are different; that words written when the most deadly weapon required a ramrod and black powder mean that we can’t make adjustments for a semi-automatic rifle and a 30-round clip.
> 
> The truth is that guns _are _different. Because the right to bear arms is _a lesser right_. A right that was never intended to exist at all.
> 
> What makes individual gun ownership a lesser right? It’s a right that only exists in the minds of a handful of hard-right Supreme Court justices who happen to be on the court at this moment. Until 2008, no federal court had _ever_ ruled that the Second Amendment included a right to individual gun ownership. It was always understood as it was written: Guns were allowed in individual hands as a means to supply the armed forces.
> 
> Here’s the _Milwaukee Independent_ looking at how Chief Justice Warren Burger discussed the Second Amendment.
> 
> That the Second Amendment exists at all is more an accident of timing than an attempt to put guns in the hands of every American.
> The amendment grew out of a fear that having a standing army would leave the nation open to depredations by an authoritarian leader, or that the nascent democracy would be overthrown by a military junta. To that end, they explicitly inserted the Second Amendment as an alternative means of providing national defense.
> 
> There were multiple drafts of the Second Amendment. Every one of them includes text explaining that this amendment exists only because it’s needed to provide for the nation’s defense.
> Just a year after the Constitution was ratified, George Washington nudged Congress to create an official U.S. military, but the still-fearful Congress limited that force to just few hundred soldiers and officers. It would be another six years before it was allowed to grow significantly. When war came in 1812 two things were immediately obvious: The number of soldiers then in the official U.S. military were far from enough to defend the nation, and the poorly organized civilian militias for which the Second Amendment was created were an absolute failure when it came to national defense.
> 
> In the next year, the professional military of the United States grew by over 300%. “Second Amendment solutions” were on their way out.
> The Second Amendment is failure. It _never _worked for its intended purposes. It was born from  the understandable fears of a new nation engaged in a radical new scheme. But it was a mistake. It may be the most costly mistake this nation has ever made other than failing to end slavery at the outset.
> 
> The right thing to do would be to recognize that mistake and pass a new amendment that simply ends the Second Amendment, just as the 18th Amendment was repealed by the 21st Amendment in 1933. (Take a drink.)
> 
> Instead, we get statements like this piece of profound ignorance. One that is wrong. Wrong. Wrong again. And then … still wrong.
> 
> 
> Recognizing that an actual repeal of the Second Amendment—while absolutely just—isn’t likely, the next best thing is to simply recognize that the right to individual gun ownership is _a lesser right_, one whose appearance in that useless amendment subjects it to practical constraint.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Second Amendment was a failure from the start, and should have been repealed 200 years ago
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as an unconstrained right. Speech has limits. Religion has limits. Assembly has limits. The idea that any of these things can be completely “free” of government oversight is a pipedream, and everyone from the founders to the...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dailykos.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Individual gun ownership rights are the result of a Supreme Court decision. Specifically Heller v DC
> 
> Just like abortion rights are the result of a Supreme Court decision. Specifically Roe v Wade
> 
> The current court is ready to take away Roe v Wade.
> 
> A future court can do the same with Heller v DC.


----------



## Oddball

skews13 said:


> Laws about freedom of speech don’t just shift when it comes to content and context, they’re also constantly updated to address something else: technology. Radio. Movies. Television. The internet. Even comic books. All have sparked changes in what is permitted and how speech is regulated. But somehow, we pretend that guns are different; that words written when the most deadly weapon required a ramrod and black powder mean that we can’t make adjustments for a semi-automatic rifle and a 30-round clip.
> 
> The truth is that guns _are _different. Because the right to bear arms is _a lesser right_. A right that was never intended to exist at all.
> 
> What makes individual gun ownership a lesser right? It’s a right that only exists in the minds of a handful of hard-right Supreme Court justices who happen to be on the court at this moment. Until 2008, no federal court had _ever_ ruled that the Second Amendment included a right to individual gun ownership. It was always understood as it was written: Guns were allowed in individual hands as a means to supply the armed forces.
> 
> Here’s the _Milwaukee Independent_ looking at how Chief Justice Warren Burger discussed the Second Amendment.
> 
> That the Second Amendment exists at all is more an accident of timing than an attempt to put guns in the hands of every American.
> The amendment grew out of a fear that having a standing army would leave the nation open to depredations by an authoritarian leader, or that the nascent democracy would be overthrown by a military junta. To that end, they explicitly inserted the Second Amendment as an alternative means of providing national defense.
> 
> There were multiple drafts of the Second Amendment. Every one of them includes text explaining that this amendment exists only because it’s needed to provide for the nation’s defense.
> Just a year after the Constitution was ratified, George Washington nudged Congress to create an official U.S. military, but the still-fearful Congress limited that force to just few hundred soldiers and officers. It would be another six years before it was allowed to grow significantly. When war came in 1812 two things were immediately obvious: The number of soldiers then in the official U.S. military were far from enough to defend the nation, and the poorly organized civilian militias for which the Second Amendment was created were an absolute failure when it came to national defense.
> 
> In the next year, the professional military of the United States grew by over 300%. “Second Amendment solutions” were on their way out.
> The Second Amendment is failure. It _never _worked for its intended purposes. It was born from  the understandable fears of a new nation engaged in a radical new scheme. But it was a mistake. It may be the most costly mistake this nation has ever made other than failing to end slavery at the outset.
> 
> The right thing to do would be to recognize that mistake and pass a new amendment that simply ends the Second Amendment, just as the 18th Amendment was repealed by the 21st Amendment in 1933. (Take a drink.)
> 
> Instead, we get statements like this piece of profound ignorance. One that is wrong. Wrong. Wrong again. And then … still wrong.
> 
> 
> Recognizing that an actual repeal of the Second Amendment—while absolutely just—isn’t likely, the next best thing is to simply recognize that the right to individual gun ownership is _a lesser right_, one whose appearance in that useless amendment subjects it to practical constraint.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Second Amendment was a failure from the start, and should have been repealed 200 years ago
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as an unconstrained right. Speech has limits. Religion has limits. Assembly has limits. The idea that any of these things can be completely “free” of government oversight is a pipedream, and everyone from the founders to the...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dailykos.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Individual gun ownership rights are the result of a Supreme Court decision. Specifically Heller v DC
> 
> Just like abortion rights are the result of a Supreme Court decision. Specifically Roe v Wade
> 
> The current court is ready to take away Roe v Wade.
> 
> A future court can do the same with Heller v DC.


----------



## Flash

skews13 said:


> Laws about freedom of speech don’t just shift when it comes to content and context, they’re also constantly updated to address something else: technology. Radio. Movies. Television. The internet. Even comic books. All have sparked changes in what is permitted and how speech is regulated. But somehow, we pretend that guns are different; that words written when the most deadly weapon required a ramrod and black powder mean that we can’t make adjustments for a semi-automatic rifle and a 30-round clip.
> 
> The truth is that guns _are _different. Because the right to bear arms is _a lesser right_. A right that was never intended to exist at all.
> 
> What makes individual gun ownership a lesser right? It’s a right that only exists in the minds of a handful of hard-right Supreme Court justices who happen to be on the court at this moment. Until 2008, no federal court had _ever_ ruled that the Second Amendment included a right to individual gun ownership. It was always understood as it was written: Guns were allowed in individual hands as a means to supply the armed forces.
> 
> Here’s the _Milwaukee Independent_ looking at how Chief Justice Warren Burger discussed the Second Amendment.
> 
> That the Second Amendment exists at all is more an accident of timing than an attempt to put guns in the hands of every American.
> The amendment grew out of a fear that having a standing army would leave the nation open to depredations by an authoritarian leader, or that the nascent democracy would be overthrown by a military junta. To that end, they explicitly inserted the Second Amendment as an alternative means of providing national defense.
> 
> There were multiple drafts of the Second Amendment. Every one of them includes text explaining that this amendment exists only because it’s needed to provide for the nation’s defense.
> Just a year after the Constitution was ratified, George Washington nudged Congress to create an official U.S. military, but the still-fearful Congress limited that force to just few hundred soldiers and officers. It would be another six years before it was allowed to grow significantly. When war came in 1812 two things were immediately obvious: The number of soldiers then in the official U.S. military were far from enough to defend the nation, and the poorly organized civilian militias for which the Second Amendment was created were an absolute failure when it came to national defense.
> 
> In the next year, the professional military of the United States grew by over 300%. “Second Amendment solutions” were on their way out.
> The Second Amendment is failure. It _never _worked for its intended purposes. It was born from  the understandable fears of a new nation engaged in a radical new scheme. But it was a mistake. It may be the most costly mistake this nation has ever made other than failing to end slavery at the outset.
> 
> The right thing to do would be to recognize that mistake and pass a new amendment that simply ends the Second Amendment, just as the 18th Amendment was repealed by the 21st Amendment in 1933. (Take a drink.)
> 
> Instead, we get statements like this piece of profound ignorance. One that is wrong. Wrong. Wrong again. And then … still wrong.
> 
> 
> Recognizing that an actual repeal of the Second Amendment—while absolutely just—isn’t likely, the next best thing is to simply recognize that the right to individual gun ownership is _a lesser right_, one whose appearance in that useless amendment subjects it to practical constraint.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Second Amendment was a failure from the start, and should have been repealed 200 years ago
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as an unconstrained right. Speech has limits. Religion has limits. Assembly has limits. The idea that any of these things can be completely “free” of government oversight is a pipedream, and everyone from the founders to the...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dailykos.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Individual gun ownership rights are the result of a Supreme Court decision. Specifically Heller v DC
> 
> Just like abortion rights are the result of a Supreme Court decision. Specifically Roe v Wade
> 
> The current court is ready to take away Roe v Wade.
> 
> A future court can do the same with Heller v DC.


It is amazing how brazen you filthy ass Left Wing turds have become.

Like all filthy Leftest your agenda has always been to take firearms away from the people so that your almighty state would be the supreme power.    You can't have anybody to resist making this country a Socialist shithole so the guns have to go.

It use to be that you deranged assholes hid your agenda by claiming that you support the Second but  just wanted "reasonable gun control".

Now you dickheads are brazen about doing away with a fundamental right in the Constitution of this country and that is despicable.

It is not about public safety because the crooks will always have access to what they need to commit their crimes, even illegally. 

It is about reducing the ability of the people to resist government power.  Our Founding Fathers understood that power needs to be in the hands of the people, not the government.  Stupid uneducated Libtards like you have no concept of what they were talking about do you?  You Moon Bats are as confused about the Constitution as you are confused about Economics, History, Climate Science, Biology and Ethics, aren't you?


----------



## Big Bend Texas

skews13 said:


> The truth is that guns _are _different. Because the right to bear arms is _a lesser right_. A right that was never intended to exist at all.


Pure fabricated BS.

It is so important it is the only enumerated right with the specific limitation on Gov't, "Shall Not Be Infringed".


----------



## Big Bend Texas

Flash said:


> It is amazing how brazen you filthy ass Left Wing turds have become.
> 
> Like all filthy Leftest your agenda has always been to take firearms away from the people so that your almighty state would be the supreme power.    You can't have anybody to resist making this country a Socialist shithole so the guns have to go.
> 
> It use to be that you deranged assholes hid your agenda by claiming that you support the Second but  just wanted "reasonable gun control".
> 
> Now you dickheads are brazen about doing away with a fundamental right in the Constitution of this country and that is despicable.
> 
> It is not about public safety because the crooks will always have access to what they need to commit their crimes, even illegally.
> 
> It is about reducing the ability of the people to resist government power.  Our Founding Fathers understood that power needs to be in the hands of the people, not the government.  Stupid uneducated Libtards like you have no concept of what they were talking about do you?  You Moon Bats are as confused about the Constitution as you are confused about Economics, History, Climate Science, Biology and Ethics, aren't you?


Should they ever prevail at least five of our most fundamental rights will have been eliminated.


----------



## Flash

Big Bend Texas said:


> Should they ever prevail at least five of our most fundamental rights will have been eliminated.


Without the Second the Bill of Rights might as well be used for toilet paper for all the use it will be.


----------



## Big Bend Texas

Flash said:


> Without the Second the Bill of Rights might as well be used for toilet paper for all the use it will be.


Absent the 2nd the rest are nothing more than suggestions.


----------



## M14 Shooter

skews13 said:


> What makes individual gun ownership a lesser right? It’s a right that only exists in the minds of a handful of hard-right Supreme Court justices who happen to be on the court at this moment. Until 2008, no federal court had _ever_ ruled that the Second Amendment included a right to individual gun ownership. It was always understood as it was written: Guns were allowed in individual hands as a means to supply the armed forces.


What USSC precedent did _Heller _overturn?


----------



## jbrownson0831

badbob85037 said:


> From your long rant all I can say is fuck you very much. Leave the country and try to let  the door hit you in the ass. Buy em books, send them to school and they still haven't a clue, eat shit, and bother people. A LESSER RIGHT What an idiot is that why it is the Second Amendment?  Get out of my country!


Commies do hate our country don't they?


----------



## M14 Shooter

Rye Catcher said:


> Nothing more, yeah that's true in the minds of those who kill by sport *and support putting a gun into the hands of every person.*


*These people* do not exist.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Rye Catcher said:


> An argument needs to be posted before a rebuttal.  Your opinion is absurd, read the 2nd closely, and see there is no mention of guns.


What sound argument is there that firearms are NOT 'arms" as th eterm us use din the 2nd?


Rye Catcher said:


> Arms are in the times in Armories,....


In the 18th and at least pat of the 19 centuires., militiman provided their own basic weapons.


----------



## M14 Shooter

skews13 said:


> Recognizing that an actual repeal of the Second Amendment—while absolutely just—isn’t likely, the next best thing is to simply recognize that the right to individual gun ownership is _a lesser right_, one whose appearance in that useless amendment subjects it to practical constraint.


The USSC held , in McDonald v Chicago, that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right held by the people, specifically protected by the constitution.   As such, it has equal standing with all the other rights protected by the bill of rights, including, but not limited to, the right to free speech, the right to peaceably assemble, the freedom of the press and the free exercise of religion

So...  No.


----------



## jbrownson0831

M14 Shooter said:


> The USSC held , in McDonald v Chicago, that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right held by the people and specifically protected by the constitution.   As such, it has equal standing with all the other rights protected by the bill of rights, including, but not limited to, the right to free speech, the right to peaceably assemble, the freedom of the press and the free exercise of religion
> 
> So...  No.


Thats why Dims want to murder members of the USSC now.


----------



## Rogue AI

Progs are worse than children. If they don't get their way they cry like the little bitches they are. All on the hopes the Courts and idiots will ignore the Constitution just to shut them up.


----------



## M14 Shooter

jbrownson0831 said:


> Thats why Dims want to murder members of the USSC now.


Of course.
They only take issue with violence that does not meet their political needs.


----------



## Sunsettommy

Rye Catcher said:


> Nothing more, yeah that's true in the minds of those who kill by sport and support putting a gun into the hands of every person.



I see that you ducked POST 42 I wrote that effectively destroyed your argument.

I applaud you for your wise decision.

Cheers


----------



## Ms. Turquoise

Toddsterpatriot said:


> It's against the law to murder children in school classrooms.


But, when it happens some people don't seem to care.


----------



## Ms. Turquoise

Calypso Jones said:


> The right doesn't shoot children.  The left kills them before they're born and supports an administration that sends American infants' formula to illegals at southern border and to Ukraine putting American infant citizens at risk.   It's all a matter of how it's done obviously.


"The Right doesn't shoot children". 
They just stand by and watch after it happens and make 100 excuses for why nothing can be done to change things. 
I'm thinking if there was ever a mass shooting at their children's or grandchildren's school, they might feel differently.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Ms. Turquoise said:


> "The Right doesn't shoot children".
> They just stand by and watch after it happens and make 100 excuses for why nothing can be done to change things.
> I'm thinking if there was ever a mass shooting at their children's or grandchildren's school, they might feel differently.



That's outrageous!!
We need to make schools gun-free zones.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

Flash said:


> It is amazing how brazen you filthy ass Left Wing turds have become.
> 
> Like all filthy Leftest your agenda has always been to take firearms away from the people so that your almighty state would be the supreme power.    You can't have anybody to resist making this country a Socialist shithole so the guns have to go.
> 
> It use to be that you deranged assholes hid your agenda by claiming that you support the Second but  just wanted "reasonable gun control".
> 
> Now you dickheads are brazen about doing away with a fundamental right in the Constitution of this country and that is despicable.
> 
> It is not about public safety because the crooks will always have access to what they need to commit their crimes, even illegally.
> 
> It is about reducing the ability of the people to resist government power.  Our Founding Fathers understood that power needs to be in the hands of the people, not the government.  Stupid uneducated Libtards like you have no concept of what they were talking about do you?  You Moon Bats are as confused about the Constitution as you are confused about Economics, History, Climate Science, Biology and Ethics, aren't you?


The language of the 2ndA does not guarantee an individual right to bear arms.  The prefatory clause qualifies the right as a matter of the need for a "well regulated militia".  

Yes, an activist court interpreted a stand-alone individual right by ignoring the prefatory clause which proves only that high school grammar is not taught in law school.  

Unless you re-write the 2ndA which would require a 2/3 majority vote, the prefatory justification in the 2ndA can only be ignored by practicing deceit or ignorance.  

Of course, the kind of errors in rational thought displayed in the Heller Case are eventually overcome, and hence, I suggest that the gun lobby prepare themselves for the application of regulations as prescribed by the 2ndA.


----------



## Deplorable Yankee

Fuck you

In 1785 Thomas Jefferson wrote to his fifteen-year-old nephew, Peter Carr, regarding what he considered the best form of exercise: "... I advise the gun. While this gives a moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprize, and independance to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks."


----------



## Flash

BLUE COLLAR said:


> The language of the 2ndA does not guarantee an individual right to bear arms.  The prefatory clause qualifies the right as a matter of the need for a "well regulated militia".


Sorry to bust your bubble but that issue has already been resolved by the Supreme Court.

What else you got?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

BLUE COLLAR said:


> The language of the 2ndA does not guarantee an individual right to bear arms. The prefatory clause qualifies the right as a matter of the need for a "well regulated militia".



It says the right of the people, not the right of the militia.


----------



## bripat9643

BLUE COLLAR said:


> The language of the 2ndA does not guarantee an individual right to bear arms.  The prefatory clause qualifies the right as a matter of the need for a "well regulated militia".
> 
> Yes, an activist court interpreted a stand-alone individual right by ignoring the prefatory clause which proves only that high school grammar is not taught in law school.
> 
> Unless you re-write the 2ndA which would require a 2/3 majority vote, the prefatory justification in the 2ndA can only be ignored by practicing deceit or ignorance.
> 
> Of course, the kind of errors in rational thought displayed in the Heller Case are eventually overcome, and hence, I suggest that the gun lobby prepare themselves for the application of regulations as prescribed by the 2ndA.


Group rights are an oxymoron.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

Deplorable Yankee said:


> Fuck you
> 
> In 1785 Thomas Jefferson wrote to his fifteen-year-old nephew, Peter Carr, regarding what he considered the best form of exercise: "... I advise the gun. While this gives a moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprize, and independance to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks."


When a poster drops to the level of a crude personal attack, I take it as frustration born of the inability to tender a real argument. 

I do credit your quoting of Jefferson as an attempt at a constructive point.  However, I don't know what context may have appeared forward of the deployed ellipsis.   While I hold Jefferson's intellect in high regard, I remind myself that his character was flawed.  Afterall, he did possess the arrogance to treat other human beings as chattels.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

Flash said:


> Sorry to bust your bubble but that issue has already been resolved by the Supreme Court.
> 
> What else you got?


No need to apologize as no bubble was busted.  

The suggestion that the matter is in now in stone conflicts with the reality of how our Constitution works.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

Toddsterpatriot said:


> It says the right of the people, not the right of the militia.


It does say that.  It also ties that right to a well-regulated militia - something that is ignored by activist judges and the gun lobby.

Grammatically, the 2ndA is not a simple sentence but a complex sentence.  Do you know the difference?  Can you define for me the purpose of a "prefatory clause"?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

BLUE COLLAR said:


> It does say that. It also ties that right to a well-regulated militia - something that is ignored by activist judges and the gun lobby.



Yes. The right of the people.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

bripat9643 said:


> Group rights are an oxymoron.


Exactly what contradiction is it that you see in the 2ndA?

The only contradiction I see is in the grammatical nonsense that confers a right that is not expressed.  The facetious reasoning in the Heller Case redacted the opening clause in the 2ndA.  Where was the two-thirds vote that authorized the change?


----------



## bripat9643

BLUE COLLAR said:


> It does say that.  It also ties that right to a well-regulated militia - something that is ignored by activist judges and the gun lobby.
> 
> Grammatically, the 2ndA is not a simple sentence but a complex sentence.  Do you know the difference?  Can you define for me the purpose of a "prefatory clause"?


How is it tied to the militia?


----------



## bripat9643

BLUE COLLAR said:


> Exactly what contradiction is it that you see in the 2ndA?


None, because it's not a group right.


BLUE COLLAR said:


> The only contradiction I see is in the grammatical nonsense that confers a right that is not expressed.  The facetious reasoning in the Heller Case redacted the opening clause in the 2ndA.  Where was the two-thirds vote that authorized the change?



"The right of the people to bear arms" is not expressed?

You realize you are an imbecile who's brain is pickled in leftwing propaganda, don't you?


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Yes. The right of the people.


The right of the people to bear arms in need to raise a well-regulated militia!  Where is that militia, where are the regulations, what is the chain of command?

The founding fathers were well-educated.  They certainly could have written the 2ndA to read:  The right of the people, of each individual citizen, to bear arms shall not be abridged.  They didn't so write, but rather, qualified the right with a prefatory clause.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

bripat9643 said:


> How is it tied to the militia?


In that part of the 2ndA appearing in advance of the first two commas.  Read it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

BLUE COLLAR said:


> The right of the people to bear arms in need to raise a well-regulated militia!  Where is that militia, where are the regulations, what is the chain of command?
> 
> The founding fathers were well-educated.  They certainly could have written the 2ndA to read:  The right of the people, of each individual citizen, to bear arms shall not be abridged.  They didn't so write, but rather, qualified the right with a prefatory clause.



*The right of the people to bear arms in need to raise a well-regulated militia!*

Yup.

*Where is that militia, where are the regulations, what is the chain of command?*

Where indeed?

*The founding fathers were well-educated.  They certainly could have written the 2ndA to read:  The right of the people, of each individual citizen, to bear arms shall not be abridged.  They didn't so write, but rather, qualified the right with a prefatory clause.*

They certainly could have written the 2nd A to read:  The right of the militia, to bear arms shall not be abridged.


----------



## bripat9643

BLUE COLLAR said:


> The right of the people to bear arms in need to raise a well-regulated militia!  Where is that militia, where are the regulations, what is the chain of command?


It doesn't say that, moron.



BLUE COLLAR said:


> The founding fathers were well-educated.  They certainly could have written the 2ndA to read:  The right of the people, of each individual citizen, to bear arms shall not be abridged.  They didn't so write, but rather, qualified the right with a prefatory clause.



Does the First Amendment say "the right of each individual citizen?"  No.  It says "the right of the people.


----------



## bripat9643

BLUE COLLAR said:


> In that part of the 2ndA appearing in advance of the first two commas.  Read it.


That doesn't have any language in it that requires anything of government.


----------



## Flash

BLUE COLLAR said:


> The suggestion that the matter is in now in stone conflicts with the reality of how our Constitution works.


According to who?

Not according to the Supreme Court, whose job it is to decide those things.

They said very specifically in the _Heller_ ruling that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

bripat9643 said:


> None, because it's not a group right.
> 
> 
> "The right of the people to bear arms" is not expressed?
> 
> You realize you are an imbecile who's brain is pickled in leftwing propaganda, don't you?


Spare me the personal insult.  I'm neither impressed nor moved by such sophomoric nonsense.

Yes, the right of the people to bear arms and raise a well-regulated militia is expressed.  There is no individual right expressed unless you ignore the purpose stated in the opening clause.


----------



## Flash

BLUE COLLAR said:


> It does say that.  It also ties that right to a well-regulated militia - something that is ignored by activist judges and the gun lobby.


It was not ignored by the Supreme Court.  It was analyzed and dismissed as not being relevant in the _Heller_ case - something that is always ignored by anti gun nuts.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

Flash said:


> According to who?
> 
> Not according to the Supreme Court, whose job it is to decide those things.
> 
> They said very specifically in the _Heller_ ruling that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right.


Like I said previously, grammar isn't taught in law school.  

Heller obliterated the opening clause in the 2ndA as is if it simply reads "the right of the individual to bear arms shall not be infringed".   Is that what it says?  Nope.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

Flash said:


> It was not ignored by the Supreme Court.  It was analyzed and dismissed as not being relevant in the _Heller_ case - something that is always ignored by anti gun nuts.


Please explain the analysis.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

bripat9643 said:


> That doesn't have any language in it that requires anything of government.


The 2ndA clearly states the need of a well-regulated militia.  Where are the regulations?  Let me answer for you, they are coming.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

Flash said:


> According to who?
> 
> Not according to the Supreme Court, whose job it is to decide those things.
> 
> They said very specifically in the _Heller_ ruling that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right.


It is not the job of the SC to redact language in the 2ndA.  That requires a 2/3 vote of congress.  Neither is it the job of the SC to ignore grammatical rules.  

Read the 2ndA, all of it.  It does not grant the individual right to parade around the mall with a loaded six-gun.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

BLUE COLLAR said:


> It does not grant the individual right to parade around the mall with a loaded six-gun.



Why do you feel that?


----------



## Billy_Bob

BLUE COLLAR said:


> The 2ndA clearly states the need of a well-regulated militia.  Where are the regulations?  Let me answer for you, they are coming.


The militia was we the people...  "Well Regulated" means they are trained, supplied, and armed.   Your terminology is lacking..

The whole purpose of the 2nd amendment is made clear in the federalist papers.  IT was meant to allow citizens to protect their GOD GIVEN RIGHTS from men wanting to take them.  We had just defeated a corrupt government and king who wanted to deprive them of their rights.  This is why they made it very clear "the right of the people to KEEP and BEAR ARMS, Shall not be infringed." 

TO KEEP is to own..

TO BEAR is to have the ammunitions, spare parts, and training necessary to protect their GOD GIVEN RIGHTS.


----------



## Billy_Bob

BLUE COLLAR said:


> It is not the job of the SC to redact language in the 2ndA.  That requires a 2/3 vote of congress.  Neither is it the job of the SC to ignore grammatical rules.
> 
> Read the 2ndA, all of it.  It does not grant the individual right to parade around the mall with a loaded six-gun.


Wrong... IT allows "the people" to protect themselves at all times. WITHOUT INFRINGMENT..


----------



## Billy_Bob

The Declaration of independence lays it out...

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with* certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.* Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. *But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--*Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world."

This is why the 2nd Amendment was placed where it was and why the founders noted the government has no right of infringement..


----------



## Flash

BLUE COLLAR said:


> Please explain the analysis.


Go read the _Heller _case.  I'm not going to spend the time doing cut and paste to educated somebody that obviously is ignorant of the subject matter and doesn't want to be educated.

If you disagree with it then that is fine but that doesn't mean jackshit.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Ms. Turquoise said:


> But, when it happens some people don't seem to care.


Especially those who use the deaths of children to push for unnecessary anf ineffective restrictions that will do nothing to protect them.


----------



## M14 Shooter

BLUE COLLAR said:


> Like I said previously, grammar isn't taught in law school.
> Heller obliterated the opening clause in the 2ndA as is if it simply reads "the right of the individual to bear arms shall not be infringed".   Is that what it says?  Nope.


See below.
Please demonstrate the argument to be unsound.

_1. Operative Clause.

a. “Right of the People.”  The first salient feature of the operative clause is that it codifies a “right of the people.”  The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase “right of the people” two other times, in the First Amendment ’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment ’s Search-and-Seizure Clause.  The Ninth Amendment  uses very similar terminology (“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”).  All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body.*5*

Three provisions of the Constitution refer to “the people” in a context other than “rights”—the famous preamble (“We the people”), §2 of Article I (providing that “the people” will choose members of the House), and the Tenth Amendment  (providing that those powers not given the Federal Government remain with “the States” or “the people”).  Those provisions arguably refer to “the people” acting collectively—but they deal with the exercise or reservation of powers, not rights.   Nowhere else in the Constitution does a “right” attributed to “the people” refer to anything other than an individual right.*6*

What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention “the people,” the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset.   As we said in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U. S. 259, 265 (1990) :

“ ‘[T]he people’ seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution… . [Its uses] sugges[t] that ‘the people’ protected by the Fourth Amendment , and by the First and Second Amendment s, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendment s, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.”

This contrasts markedly with the phrase “the militia” in the prefatory clause.  As we will describe below, the “militia” in colonial America consisted of a subset of “the people”—those who were male, able bodied, and within a certain age range.  Reading the Second Amendment  as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.”

We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment  right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans._






						DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
					






					www.law.cornell.edu


----------



## M14 Shooter

BLUE COLLAR said:


> Read the 2ndA, all of it.  It does not grant the individual right to parade around the mall with a loaded six-gun.


Nice straw man you have there - did you pick out the clothes yourself?


----------



## Ms. Turquoise

M14 Shooter said:


> Especially those who use the deaths of children to push for unnecessary anf ineffective restrictions that will do nothing to protect them.


Especially those who would  risk young children being slaughtered in their classrooms rather than  change the laws. Or make it so that the NRA can't buy politicians.


----------



## Flash

BLUE COLLAR said:


> It is not the job of the SC to redact language in the 2ndA.  That requires a 2/3 vote of congress.  Neither is it the job of the SC to ignore grammatical rules.
> 
> Read the 2ndA, all of it.  It does not grant the individual right to parade around the mall with a loaded six-gun.


You are confused and is the one reading language into the Bill of Rights.  They read it, did research and came to the conclusion that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right not connected to membership in any organization.

If you disagree being an anti gun nut then fine.  That is your prerogative to be an uneducated anti gun nut dumb ass.  However, it is not your job to say what it means.  It is the job of the Supreme Court granted by the Constitution. 

The Supreme Court has already established that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right the same as the right to free speech and the right of religion.

The only question is how much can the Feds, States and Locals infringe upon that right.

Unfortunately the governments have not been applying the appropriate standard of Strict Scrutiny to gun control laws.  They have applied the lesser standards of Intermediate Scrutiny and Rational Basis Review.  That is what have given us all these bat shit crazy oppressive gun control laws like in the Communist States like California, New York and cities like Chicago.

Hopefully this case before the Supreme Court now from New York will settle that question for good and require that Strict Scrutiny be used for any gun control law.  The fact that the Court took the case and the questions asked in the Oral arguments indicate that the Justices were leaning towards making that ruling.  We will see.

After that the Court has shown interest in ruling on a magazine ban.  They put that case on hold pending a judgement by a lower court but have shown interest in ruling on it.

We need to stop the goddam crazy Libtards from infringing upon our Constitional rights.  All Americans except the stupid uneducated low information Moon Bats would agree with that.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Ms. Turquoise said:


> Especially those who would risk young children being slaughtered in their classrooms rather than change the laws.



We should make it illegal to slaughter young children. Can we count on your support?


----------



## DudleySmith

Rambunctious said:


> Democrats hold the power in America today... they have majority in both houses and the white house... But they can't pass a single gun buying reform bill?... Trump did when he was president.... so what's Joe's problem?....



It is the Federal benches they control that matter the most; judicial fiat counts for more than laws these days. and has since the Civil War.


----------



## rupol2000

Fucking idiot, the 2nd Amendment isn't about weapons, it's about the right to resist the feds. The feds didn't have nuclear warheads back then either. The Fathers simply put a  cord in the ass of British pigs and set it on fire, and they flew back to foggy Albion. But Trumpsters and Dems are still in the USA


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Yes. The right of the people.


Again, you are clipping the 2ndA to something shorter than it's complete meaning.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

BLUE COLLAR said:


> Again, you are clipping the 2ndA to something shorter than it's complete meaning.



Does it say the right of the people or the right of the militia?
Does it say I have the right to bear arms, only when I'm in the militia?
Does it say I have the right to bear arms, only when the militia decides I do?
Show me how the meaning is less than fully mine.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

M14 Shooter said:


> See below.
> Please demonstrate the argument to be unsound.
> 
> _1. Operative Clause.
> 
> a. “Right of the People.”  The first salient feature of the operative clause is that it codifies a “right of the people.”  The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase “right of the people” two other times, in the First Amendment ’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment ’s Search-and-Seizure Clause.  The Ninth Amendment  uses very similar terminology (“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”).  All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body.*5*
> 
> Three provisions of the Constitution refer to “the people” in a context other than “rights”—the famous preamble (“We the people”), §2 of Article I (providing that “the people” will choose members of the House), and the Tenth Amendment  (providing that those powers not given the Federal Government remain with “the States” or “the people”).  Those provisions arguably refer to “the people” acting collectively—but they deal with the exercise or reservation of powers, not rights.   Nowhere else in the Constitution does a “right” attributed to “the people” refer to anything other than an individual right.*6*
> 
> What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention “the people,” the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset.   As we said in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U. S. 259, 265 (1990) :
> 
> “ ‘[T]he people’ seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution… . [Its uses] sugges[t] that ‘the people’ protected by the Fourth Amendment , and by the First and Second Amendment s, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendment s, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.”
> 
> This contrasts markedly with the phrase “the militia” in the prefatory clause.  As we will describe below, the “militia” in colonial America consisted of a subset of “the people”—those who were male, able bodied, and within a certain age range.  Reading the Second Amendment  as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.”_
> 
> _We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment  right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.law.cornell.edu


Nothing provided above explains why you ignore the prefatory clause and its purpose in the 2ndA.  My guess is that like Judge Scalia, you don't understand the function of a prefatory clause.  Prove me wrong.  Explain the purpose of the prefatory clause in the 2nd.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

M14 Shooter said:


> Nice straw man you have there - did you pick out the clothes yourself?





Toddsterpatriot said:


> Does it say the right of the people or the right of the militia?
> Does it say I have the right to bear arms, only when I'm in the militia?
> Does it say I have the right to bear arms, only when the militia decides I do?
> Show me how the meaning is less than fully mine.


We both know what it says but you choose to ignore the REASON for the 2ndA.  It was given to accommodate a well-regulated militia.  If it was granted purely as individual right, the prefatory clause would not be there.  But wait, there it is!


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

M14 Shooter said:


> Nice straw man you have there - did you pick out the clothes yourself?


Let's just say that I refuse to allow you to pick them.  I also refuse to ignore the opening clause in the 2ndA.  Why do you ignore it?


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

M14 Shooter said:


> Especially those who use the deaths of children to push for unnecessary anf ineffective restrictions that will do nothing to protect them.


Well, stiffer gun laws are certainly not going to eliminate gun violence (or mass shootings) - but they help.  Per capita gun violence is lower in California than in Texas, and most other places in the country.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

BLUE COLLAR said:


> We both know what it says but you choose to ignore the REASON for the 2ndA.  It was given to accommodate a well-regulated militia.  If it was granted purely as individual right, the prefatory clause would not be there.  But wait, there it is!



* It was given to accommodate a well-regulated militia. *

And yet, specified the right was the people's, not the militia's.

*If it was granted purely as individual right, the prefatory clause would not be there.*

If it was meant to be limited by the militia, they could have stated that.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

Flash said:


> You are confused and is the one reading language into the Bill of Rights.  They read it, did research and came to the conclusion that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right not connected to membership in any organization.
> 
> If you disagree being an anti gun nut then fine.  That is your prerogative to be an uneducated anti gun nut dumb ass.  However, it is not your job to say what it means.  It is the job of the Supreme Court granted by the Constitution.
> 
> The Supreme Court has already established that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right the same as the right to free speech and the right of religion.
> 
> The only question is how much can the Feds, States and Locals infringe upon that right.
> 
> Unfortunately the governments have not been applying the appropriate standard of Strict Scrutiny to gun control laws.  They have applied the lesser standards of Intermediate Scrutiny and Rational Basis Review.  That is what have given us all these bat shit crazy oppressive gun control laws like in the Communist States like California, New York and cities like Chicago.
> 
> Hopefully this case before the Supreme Court now from New York will settle that question for good and require that Strict Scrutiny be used for any gun control law.  The fact that the Court took the case and the questions asked in the Oral arguments indicate that the Justices were leaning towards making that ruling.  We will see.
> 
> After that the Court has shown interest in ruling on a magazine ban.  They put that case on hold pending a judgement by a lower court but have shown interest in ruling on it.
> 
> We need to stop the goddam crazy Libtards from infringing upon our Constitional rights.  All Americans except the stupid uneducated low information Moon Bats would agree with that.


While the above post attempts some legitimate points, it is overloaded with ad hominem making it a bore to sort through.

The reality is that this is a simple issue.  The 2ndA has both an operative clause granting the right of the people to bear arms, and a prefatory clause establishing the reason for that right (a well-regulated militia).   I read the whole sentence while you ignore part of it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

BLUE COLLAR said:


> Well, stiffer gun laws are certainly not going to eliminate gun violence (or mass shootings) - but they help.  Per capita gun violence is lower in California than in Texas, and most other places in the country.



*Per capita gun violence is lower in California than in Texas,*

Are you sure?










__





						Gun violence in the United States by state - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




Looks like gun ownership is almost 78% higher in Texas, but the gun murder rate is the same (in 2015).


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

BLUE COLLAR said:


> While the above post attempts some legitimate points, it is overloaded with ad hominem making it a bore to sort through.
> 
> The reality is that this is a simple issue.  The 2ndA has both an operative clause granting the right of the people to bear arms, and a prefatory clause establishing the reason for that right (a well-regulated militia).   I read the whole sentence while you ignore part of it.



*and a prefatory clause establishing the reason for that right *

A reason which in no way limits that right.


----------



## bripat9643

BLUE COLLAR said:


> Again, you are clipping the 2ndA to something shorter than it's complete meaning.


Nope.  He's clipping it to what is  actually actionable in it.  "_A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State_" doesn't direct the government to do anything, moron.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

bripat9643 said:


> Nope.  He's clipping it to what is  actually actionable in it.  "_A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State_" doesn't direct the government to do anything, moron.


So, the government included the prefatory clause but those words have no meaning; they impart no instruction as to the purpose of the 2ndA?  

Wow, talk about dense.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *and a prefatory clause establishing the reason for that right *
> 
> A reason which in no way limits that right.


So, you confess that a well-regulated militia is the reason for granting the right to bear arms?  But then, contradict yourself by declaring that the right extends beyond its stated purpose.  How fucking dense is that?

I want to clarify that beyond the 2ndA I appreciate a right to bear arms for sport and protection.  I just don't accept that it is unabridged to the point of denying reasonable restraint.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Per capita gun violence is lower in California than in Texas,*
> 
> Are you sure?
> 
> 
> View attachment 656782
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gun violence in the United States by state - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like gun ownership is almost 78% higher in Texas, but the gun murder rate is the same (in 2015).


Did you cherry-pick 2015?

I found something completely different in 2022.


			Crime 2022
		


I will confess that the differences are sometimes fairly small.  However, if a little inconvenience in buying/possessing firearms saves lives, we need to at least indulge a rational dialogue on the subject.


----------



## bripat9643

BLUE COLLAR said:


> We both know what it says but you choose to ignore the REASON for the 2ndA.  It was given to accommodate a well-regulated militia.  If it was granted purely as individual right, the prefatory clause would not be there.  But wait, there it is!


It doesn't matter what the reason is.  What the law says is that the right to bear arms SHALL NOT BE ABRIDGED.   

How would the law change if we accepted your interpretation, the government could infringe on it any way it wanted to?


----------



## bripat9643

BLUE COLLAR said:


> So, you confess that a well-regulated militia is the reason for granting the right to bear arms?  But then, contradict yourself by declaring that the right extends beyond its stated purpose.  How fucking dense is that?
> 
> I want to clarify that beyond the 2ndA I appreciate a right to bear arms for sport and protection.  I just don't accept that it is unabridged to the point of denying reasonable restraint.


The right doesn't extend beyond what the law states, that the right to bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.


----------



## bripat9643

BLUE COLLAR said:


> So, you confess that a well-regulated militia is the reason for granting the right to bear arms?  But then, contradict yourself by declaring that the right extends beyond its stated purpose.  How fucking dense is that?
> 
> I want to clarify that beyond the 2ndA I appreciate a right to bear arms for sport and protection.  I just don't accept that it is unabridged to the point of denying reasonable restraint.


The term "reasonable restraint" means no restraint.


----------



## Flash

BLUE COLLAR said:


> While the above post attempts some legitimate points, it is overloaded with ad hominem making it a bore to sort through.
> 
> The reality is that this is a simple issue.  The 2ndA has both an operative clause granting the right of the people to bear arms, and a prefatory clause establishing the reason for that right (a well-regulated militia).   I read the whole sentence while you ignore part of it.


Your stupidity comes from the fact that issue was settled in the _Heller_ case and you are simply too uneducated to understand it.

You keep harping on something that is a moot point.  In the _Heller c_ase Scalia spent some time explaining how that prefatory clause did nothing to prevent the Second from being an individual right.  I used Ad hominem because you have peanut butter in your ears and don't want to hear the truth.

If you are going to be a dumbass don't get your panties in wad because you are called on it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

BLUE COLLAR said:


> So, you confess that a well-regulated militia is the reason for granting the right to bear arms?  But then, contradict yourself by declaring that the right extends beyond its stated purpose.  How fucking dense is that?
> 
> I want to clarify that beyond the 2ndA I appreciate a right to bear arms for sport and protection.  I just don't accept that it is unabridged to the point of denying reasonable restraint.



*So, you confess that a well-regulated militia is the reason for granting the right to bear arms?*

No.

*But then, contradict yourself by declaring that the right extends beyond its stated purpose.*

The right existed before the Constitution was written.

*How fucking dense is that?*

Your ignorance approaches the density of osmium.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

BLUE COLLAR said:


> Did you cherry-pick 2015?
> 
> I found something completely different in 2022.
> 
> 
> Crime 2022
> 
> 
> 
> I will confess that the differences are sometimes fairly small.  However, if a little inconvenience in buying/possessing firearms saves lives, we need to at least indulge a rational dialogue on the subject.



*Did you cherry-pick 2015?*

Nope.
That was the wiki entry that came up, top of my Google search.

*I found something completely different in 2022.*

Yours is "gun death rate" not "gun murder rate".

*However, if a little inconvenience in buying/possessing firearms saves lives, we need to at least indulge a rational dialogue on the subject.*

Schools are gun-free zones. Has that little inconvenience saved lives?


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Did you cherry-pick 2015?*
> 
> Nope.
> That was the wiki entry that came up, top of my Google search.
> 
> *I found something completely different in 2022.*
> 
> Yours is "gun death rate" not "gun murder rate".
> 
> *However, if a little inconvenience in buying/possessing firearms saves lives, we need to at least indulge a rational dialogue on the subject.*
> 
> Schools are gun-free zones. Has that little inconvenience saved lives?


Well, whoever reached back to 2015 (for wiki) likely did not do so simply because it was the most pertinent year.  But if comparing Cal to Tex doesn't work for you, try comparing the US to most every other country.  

Hell, most people shot dead in Mexico are shot with guns originating in the US.   And there it is, the profit motive for not regulating the militia.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *So, you confess that a well-regulated militia is the reason for granting the right to bear arms?*
> 
> No.
> 
> *But then, contradict yourself by declaring that the right extends beyond its stated purpose.*
> 
> The right existed before the Constitution was written.
> 
> *How fucking dense is that?*
> 
> Your ignorance approaches the density of osmium.


Your capacity for indulging name-calling and personal insult tells me a lot about you.


----------



## Failzero

But but Pancho Villa could have taken 1/4 of Texas if there was no 2A/RTKBA ( notice I said “ Take” not Hold


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

BLUE COLLAR said:


> Well, whoever reached back to 2015 (for wiki) likely did not do so simply because it was the most pertinent year.



Maybe it was the most recent one when the page was created?
If you have the same info for 2021, post it up buttercup.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

BLUE COLLAR said:


> Your capacity for indulging name-calling and personal insult tells me a lot about you.



Name calling? Where?


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

Flash said:


> *Your stupidity* comes from the fact that issue was settled in the _Heller_ case and *you are simply too uneducated* to understand it.
> 
> You keep harping on something that is a moot point.  In the _Heller c_ase Scalia spent some time explaining how that prefatory clause did nothing to prevent the Second from being an individual right.  I used Ad hominem because *you have peanut butter in your ears *and don't want to hear the truth.
> 
> If you are *going to be a dumbass* don't get *your panties in wad* because you are called on it.


I bolded the personal insults.  Be advised that they do not affect my panties.  Rather, I highlight them in demonstrating the low grade of the above argument.  

If you are suggesting that Heller cannot be overturned, I'd suggest you familiarize yourself with the US Constitution.  Not only will it be overturned but you will register your toys, prove your proficiency with same and report all private party sales (especially to the Cartel and other criminals).  Otherwise, you are free to keep your toys (in a locked cabinet), defend your person/home, and go Duck Slaughtering with the ghost of Scalise... maybe Dick Cheney will tag along, have a few drinks, shoot someone in the face and leave the scene of the crime.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

BLUE COLLAR said:


> But if comparing Cal to Tex doesn't work for you,



Looks like it didn't work for you. LOL!


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Maybe it was the most recent one when the page was created?
> If you have the same info for 2021, post it up buttercup.


I can accept that the entry may have been made some time ago, and that you hurried a google and slurped it up.

Here's one covering 2020.  You don't have to know how to read, just note that the lighter colors are the safer places to live.





						Stats of the States - Firearm Mortality
					






					www.cdc.gov


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Looks like it didn't work for you. LOL!


The premature ejaculation is yours.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

bripat9643 said:


> The term "reasonable restraint" means no restraint.


In who's dictionary?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

BLUE COLLAR said:


> I can accept that the entry may have been made some time ago, and that you hurried a google and slurped it up.
> 
> Here's one covering 2020.  You don't have to know how to read, just note that the lighter colors are the safer places to live.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stats of the States - Firearm Mortality
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cdc.gov



Why are you linking to gun deaths instead of gun murders?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

BLUE COLLAR said:


> The premature ejaculation is yours.



Are you sad because I refuted your claim?


----------



## Flash

BLUE COLLAR said:


> I bolded the personal insults.  Be advised that they do not affect my panties.  Rather, I highlight them in demonstrating the low grade of the above argument.
> 
> If you are suggesting that Heller cannot be overturned, I'd suggest you familiarize yourself with the US Constitution.  Not only will it be overturned but you will register your toys, prove your proficiency with same and report all private party sales (especially to the Cartel and other criminals).  Otherwise, you are free to keep your toys (in a locked cabinet), defend your person/home, and go Duck Slaughtering with the ghost of Scalise... maybe Dick Cheney will tag along, have a few drinks, shoot someone in the face and leave the scene of the crime.




You don't know a damn thing about _Heller_, do you Moon Bat?

Let me explain it to you so that you won't embarrass yourself with your ignorance any more.

Dick Heller was a retired DC policeman.  Never had any trouble with the law and was in fact a very responsible individual.

Heller wanted a firearm in his home for protection because as we all know DC is a Democrat run city with enormous crime.  Being a former policeman he very well knew the danger.

The fucking asshole Democrats in DC said that Heller could not have the firearm in his own home.  They infringed upon his right to keep and bear arms as is guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.

He sued and the Supreme Court took the case.

DC argued they had the right to infringe upon Heller's right to keep and bear arms for several reasons, one of them being that he was not a member of  a "well regulated militia".

The Supreme Court found that Dick Heller was denied his Constitutional rights.   The majority opinion of the Court was the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right and that it was not connected in any shape or form to any membership in any organization, including a militia.

They order DC to let Dick Heller to keep and bear his arm.

Later the Court found the same thing in the _McDonald _case because the filthy ass Democrats in Chicago were doing the same oppressive anti Constitutional shit as the Democrats in DC were doing.

That is the law of the land now.

However, as we have learned over and over again we can't trust the Courts to protects our Liberties any more than we can trust the Legislative or Executive branches.

Libtards are hell bent in destroying our Liberty and one day may be able to turn this country into a Socialist shithole. Stealing the 2020 election showed us what they are capable of doing.  Heaven help us all if the goddamn Liberals ever get majority control of the Supreme Court because we can kiss our Liberty goodbye.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

Flash said:


> Your stupidity comes from the fact that issue was settled in the _Heller_ case and you are simply too uneducated to understand it.
> 
> You keep harping on something that is a moot point.  In the _Heller c_ase Scalia spent some time explaining how that prefatory clause did nothing to prevent the Second from being an individual right.  *I used Ad hominem because you have peanut butter in your ears* and don't want to hear the truth.
> 
> If you are going to be a dumbass don't get your panties in wad because you are called on it.


Regarding what I bolded in your post:

So, if someone has PB in their ears, they hear ad hominem but not rational conversation?  This might be true as an ad hominem is more likely delivered by someone who is angry, screaming, and out of control.  I hope they are not carrying a weapon when acting this way.  They could be interpreted as dangerous and shot by the unregulated militia.


----------



## Failzero

My War Trophy " WW2 Bringback " 1911A1 is the Flagship of my HG collection


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Are you sad because I refuted your claim?


IF sad, it's because I'm reminded of Pinkville and all those red-blooded American Boys who couldn't wait to get their first kill.

Bang-bang, they shot the babies dead!


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

Failzero said:


> My War Trophy " WW2 Bringback " 1911A1 is the Flagship of my HG collection


Congrads...


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Why are you linking to gun deaths instead of gun murders?


Dead is dead.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

Flash said:


> You don't know a damn thing about _Heller_, do you Moon Bat?
> 
> Let me explain it to you so that you won't embarrass yourself with your ignorance any more.
> 
> Dick Heller was a retired DC policeman.  Never had any trouble with the law and was in fact a very responsible individual.
> 
> Heller wanted a firearm in his home for protection because as we all know DC is a Democrat run city with enormous crime.  Being a former policeman he very well knew the danger.
> 
> The fucking asshole Democrats in DC said that Heller could not have the firearm in his own home.  They infringed upon his right to keep and bear arms as is guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.
> 
> He sued and the Supreme Court took the case.
> 
> DC argued they had the right to infringe upon Heller's right to keep and bear arms for several reasons, one of them being that he was not a member of  a "well regulated militia".
> 
> The Supreme Court found that Dick Heller was denied his Constitutional rights.   The majority opinion of the Court was the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right and that it was not connected in any shape or form to any membership in any organization, including a militia.
> 
> They order DC to let Dick Heller to keep and bear his arm.
> 
> Later the Court found the same thing in the _McDonald _case because the filthy ass Democrats in Chicago were doing the same oppressive anti Constitutional shit as the Democrats in DC were doing.
> 
> That is the law of the land now.
> 
> However, as we have learned over and over again we can't trust the Courts to protects our Liberties any more than we can trust the Legislative or Executive branches.
> 
> Libtards are hell bent in destroying our Liberty and one day may be able to turn this country into a Socialist shithole. Stealing the 2020 election showed us what they are capable of doing.  Heaven help us all if the goddamn Liberals ever get majority control of the Supreme Court because we can kiss our Liberty goodbye.


Thanks for all that, but I've read it before and agree with Dick's right to protect his home.  I keep a baseball bat at my front door - just in case.  

As for your generalizations about other Americans, I'm not impressed.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

BLUE COLLAR said:


> Dead is dead.




Do gun suicides make you feel unsafe?


----------



## Failzero

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Do gun suicides make you feel unsafe?


Illegals & eMe /MS13 with Guns make me feel unsafer than Black Folks in Bad Areas gettin Guns for Protection


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

Failzero said:


> But but Pancho Villa could have taken 1/4 of Texas if there was no 2A/RTKBA ( notice I said “ Take” not Hold


Yes, but back then things were different.  

Remember when the world was flat?  Remember when you could rape a woman on the excuse of looking for the mark of the devil?  Remember when blacks were bought and sold like horses?  Remember when good Catholics placed bad Protestants on a rack to be stretched?  Remember when wealthy aristocrats could buy their way out of defending the country? Remember when Native Americans were Indians, cowards who hid behind rocks and trees with their bows rather than face our long rifles like real men?  Remember when you had to own land to vote?  Remember the KKK and the good old days when the rule of law meant a rope and a tree?  Remember when ten-year-olds worked in the factories?  

When will MAGA deliver us to those good times?   Just kidding, of course.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Do gun suicides make you feel unsafe?


Does gun registration make you unsafe?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

BLUE COLLAR said:


> Does gun registration make you unsafe?



Yes.


----------



## Failzero

BLUE COLLAR said:


> Does gun registration make you unsafe?


Register Socialists not Firearms


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

Failzero said:


> Register Socialists not Firearms


They are registered.  You have to have a social security card to get that monthly check.

Btw, it was Trump not the libs who kissed Putin's ass and went to bed with Kim.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

BLUE COLLAR said:


> They are registered.  You have to have a social security card to get that monthly check.
> 
> Btw, it was Trump not the libs who kissed Putin's ass and went to bed with Kim.



The 1980s called.......


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

bripat9643 said:


> It doesn't matter what the reason is.  What the law says is that the right to bear arms SHALL NOT BE ABRIDGED.
> 
> How would the law change if we accepted your interpretation, the government could infringe on it any way it wanted to?


Yes, and that right is tied to a well-regulated militia.  Prepare to be regulated.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

Toddsterpatriot said:


> The 1980s called.......


Beats the shit out of your call to the 1880s.


----------



## Failzero

BLUE COLLAR said:


> Beats the shit out of your call to the 1880s.


1959 would do just fine


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

Toddsterpatriot said:


> * It was given to accommodate a well-regulated militia. *
> 
> And yet, specified the right was the people's, not the militia's.
> 
> *If it was granted purely as individual right, the prefatory clause would not be there.*
> 
> If it was meant to be limited by the militia, they could have stated that.


They did so state with the inclusion of the prefatory clause that you continually ignore.


----------



## Orangecat

skews13 said:


> The Second Amendment Was A Failure From The Start,​


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

BLUE COLLAR said:


> Beats the shit out of your call to the 1880s.



Maybe we need to be more flexible, eh comrade?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

BLUE COLLAR said:


> They did so state with the inclusion of the prefatory clause that you continually ignore.



Yup, they stated the shit out of it.
Which in no way, shape or form limits the individual right.


----------



## bripat9643

BLUE COLLAR said:


> Yes, and that right is tied to a well-regulated militia.  Prepare to be regulated.


No it isn't.   Furthermore, the term "tied to" is meaningless.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

bripat9643 said:


> No it isn't.   Furthermore, the term "tied to" is meaningless.


Yes it is, that's what the prefatory clause does, states the reason/purpose for the 2ndA.  Did they not teach grammar where you went to school.   Someone call Betsy and report this travesty.

Using twisted grammar to deny the presence of the prefatory clause is not simply an interpretation of the stated clause but an amendment to 2ndA.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Yup, they stated the shit out of it.
> Which in no way, shape or form limits the individual right.


What individual right?  As stated where in the Constitution other than the 2ndA?

Your individual right exist on the expressed need of a well-regulated militia.  It's written in plain English and observes grammatical rules.  Words and the manner in which they are ordered have meaning.  If you wish a stand-alone right, roll up your sleeves and amend the Constitution.


----------



## BackAgain

The Second Amendment was and remains a smashing success.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Maybe we need to be more flexible, eh comrade?


I am being flexible... you are welcomed to properly amend the US Constitution.

Btw, this comrade served in combat for the Red, White and Blue.  One of my comrades in arms died from small arms fire and is buried at Ft Rosecrans, not two miles from where this commie managed to buy a home a hundred yards from the Pacific Ocean.  SSgt John Harold Lxxxxxxx was the ATL on a LRP Team, a close personal friend, and unfortunately, not the only one to be lost.  PFC Jim Rxxxxxx also fell to small arms.  Sp4 Duane Bxxxx was standing too close when Charlie lobbed a rocket.  When Sp5 John Rxxx lost both legs, I was an FNG and don't remember the name of the poor bastard who stepped on the mine.  Sp4 Mike Pxxxxx was caught in a crossfire and took seven rounds in one leg.  He lived but eventually had the leg amputated (nerve damage and persistant pain).

Do you think guns and this kind of shit is a game?  Why not ask the parents of some those kids shot in Texas?  Ask them if they think a little inconvenience to gun ownership is worth saving just a couple of those kids.

Mind your manners and stick to the subject.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

BLUE COLLAR said:


> What individual right?  As stated where in the Constitution other than the 2ndA?
> 
> Your individual right exist on the expressed need of a well-regulated militia.  It's written in plain English and observes grammatical rules.  Words and the manner in which they are ordered have meaning.  If you wish a stand-alone right, roll up your sleeves and amend the Constitution.



*What individual right?*

To keep and bear arms.

*Your individual right exist on the expressed need of a well-regulated militia. *

It exists independent of a militia. Independent of a constitution.

*It's written in plain English*

It sure is.

*If you wish a stand-alone right, roll up your sleeves and amend the Constitution.*

If you wish it to depend on membership in a militia, you amend it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

BLUE COLLAR said:


> I am being flexible... you are welcomed to properly amend the US Constitution.
> 
> Btw, this comrade served in combat for the Red, White and Blue.  One of my comrades in arms died from small arms fire and is buried at Ft Rosecrans, not two miles from where this commie managed to buy a home a hundred yards from the Pacific Ocean.  SSgt John Harold Lxxxxxxx was the ATL on a LRP Team, a close personal friend, and unfortunately, not the only one to be lost.  PFC Jim Rxxxxxx also fell to small arms.  Sp4 Duane Bxxxx was standing too close when Charlie lobbed a rocket.  When Sp5 John Rxxx lost both legs, I was an FNG and don't remember the name of the poor bastard who stepped on the mine.  Sp4 Mike Pxxxxx was caught in a crossfire and took seven rounds in one leg.  He lived but eventually had the leg amputated (nerve damage and persistant pain).
> 
> Do you think guns and this kind of shit is a game?  Why not ask the parents of some those kids shot in Texas?  Ask them if they think a little inconvenience to gun ownership is worth saving just a couple of those kids.
> 
> Mind your manners and stick to the subject.



*Do you think guns and this kind of shit is a game? *

Nope.

*Why not ask the parents of some those kids shot in Texas? *

Why would I do that?

*Mind your manners and stick to the subject.*

Kiss my ass.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Do you think guns and this kind of shit is a game? *
> 
> Nope.
> 
> *Why not ask the parents of some those kids shot in Texas? *
> 
> Why would I do that?
> 
> *Mind your manners and stick to the subject.*
> 
> Kiss my ass.


I'm going to break a personal rule, something I occasionally do.  After all, I sat still for a shit load of your sophomoric nonsense without responding in kind.

Patriot, my ass.  You're just a punk and a coward.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *What individual right?*
> 
> To keep and bear arms.
> 
> *Your individual right exist on the expressed need of a well-regulated militia.
> 
> It exists independent of a militia. Independent of a constitution.
> 
> It's written in plain English*
> 
> It sure is.
> 
> *If you wish a stand-alone right, roll up your sleeves and amend the Constitution.*
> 
> If you wish it to depend on membership in a militia, you amend it.


Well, there we have it, what I bolded big.

Guns are your religion and we should take your instructions from God on faith.  What a crock.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

BLUE COLLAR said:


> I'm going to break a personal rule, something I occasionally do.  After all, I sat still for a shit load of your sophomoric nonsense without responding in kind.
> 
> Patriot, my ass.  You're just a punk and a coward.



And yet, kiss my ass.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

BLUE COLLAR said:


> Well, there we have it, what I bolded big.
> 
> Guns are your religion and we should take your instructions from God on faith.  What a crock.



*Well, there we have it, what I bolded big.*

Yup. Freedom, it's still a thing.

*Guns are your religion*

No, but rights do exist independent of the Constitution.
You have freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
Those weren't given to you by the Constitution. 
Same with guns.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

Toddsterpatriot said:


> And yet, kiss my ass.


The above is an incomplete sentence.

No wonder you have problems with a complex sentence.   I'll bet you'd get dizzy with a complex-compound sentence.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

BLUE COLLAR said:


> The above is an incomplete sentence.
> 
> No wonder you have problems with a complex sentence.   I'll bet you'd get dizzy with a complex-compound sentence.



Less yapping, more kissing my ass.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Well, there we have it, what I bolded big.*
> 
> Yup. Freedom, it's still a thing.
> 
> *Guns are your religion*
> 
> No, but rights do exist independent of the Constitution.
> You have freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
> Those weren't given to you by the Constitution.
> Same with guns.


So, by your reasoning we've always had all those rights?  Did blacks also have them?  Sorry, but the Constitution and the Rule of Law guarantee them (or at least try).  

I think what you mean is that we should have always had certain rights.  

However, I would add that with rights come responsibilities.  Is it not reasonable that I should have the right to swing my arms through the air?  But what if my fist come in contact with your mug?  What if guns come into the hands of criminals, or the insane, via private party sales?  Shall we not be responsible and end such lunacy - or at least make a reasonable effort to slow it down?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

BLUE COLLAR said:


> So, by your reasoning we've always had all those rights?  Did blacks also have them?  Sorry, but the Constitution and the Rule of Law guarantee them (or at least try).
> 
> I think what you mean is that we should have always had certain rights.
> 
> However, I would add that with rights come responsibilities.  Is it not reasonable that I should have the right to swing my arms through the air?  But what if my fist come in contact with your mug?  What if guns come into the hands of criminals, or the insane, via private party sales?  Shall we not be responsible and end such lunacy - or at least make a reasonable effort to slow it down?



*So, by your reasoning we've always had all those rights?*

Yup.


----------



## Leweman

Democrats were a failure 200 years ago and should have been repealed on Thursday.


----------



## M14 Shooter

BLUE COLLAR said:


> Nothing provided above explains why you ignore the prefatory clause and its purpose in the 2ndA.


As you did not in any way even try to address the quote I provided, I shall accept your agreement that it is sound.

To your complaint above:
See below.
Please demonstrate the argument to be unsound.

3. Relationship between Prefatory Clause and     Operative Clause

We reach the question, then: Does the preface fit with an operative clause that creates an individual right to keep and bear arms?  It fits perfectly, once one knows the history that the founding generation knew and that we have described above.  That history showed that the way tyrants had eliminated a militia consisting of all the able-bodied men was not by banning the militia but simply by taking away the people’s arms, enabling a select militia or standing army to suppress political opponents.  This is what had occurred in England that prompted codification of the right to have arms in the English Bill of Rights.

The debate with respect to the right to keep and bear arms, as with other guarantees in the Bill of Rights, was not over whether it was desirable (all agreed that it was) but over whether it needed to be codified in the Constitution.  During the 1788 ratification debates, the fear that the federal government would disarm the people in order to impose rule through a standing army or select militia was pervasive in Antifederalist rhetoric.  See, _e.g._, Letters from The Federal Farmer III (Oct. 10, 1787), in 2 The Complete Anti-Federalist 234, 242 (H. Storing ed. 1981).  John Smilie, for example, worried not only that Congress’s “command of the militia” could be used to create a “select militia,” or to have “no militia at all,” but also, as a separate concern, that “[w]hen a select militia is formed; the people in general may be disarmed.”  2 Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution 508–509 (M. Jensen ed. 1976) (hereinafter Documentary Hist.).  Federalists responded that because Congress was given no power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, such a force could never oppress the people.   See, _e.g._, A Pennsylvanian III (Feb. 20, 1788), in The Origin of the Second Amendment  275, 276 (D. Young ed., 2d ed. 2001) (hereinafter Young); White, To the Citizens of Virginia, Feb. 22, 1788, in _id._, at 280, 281; A Citizen of America, (Oct. 10, 1787) in _id._, at 38, 40; Remarks on the Amendments to the federal Constitution, Nov. 7, 1788, in _id._, at 556.  It was understood across the political spectrum that the right helped to secure the ideal of a citizen militia, which might be necessary to oppose an oppressive military force if the constitutional order broke down.

*It is therefore entirely sensible that the Second Amendment ’s prefatory clause announces the purpose for which the right was codified: to prevent elimination of the militia.  The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting.  But the threat that the new Federal Government would destroy the citizens’ militia by taking away their arms was the reason that right—unlike some other English rights—was codified in a written Constitution.  Justice Breyer’s assertion that individual self-defense is merely a “subsidiary interest” of the right to keep and bear arms, see post, at 36, is profoundly mistaken.  He bases that assertion solely upon the prologue—but that can only show that self-defense had little to do with the right’s codification; it was the central component of the right itself.*


----------



## bripat9643

BLUE COLLAR said:


> Yes it is, that's what the prefatory clause does, states the reason/purpose for the 2ndA.  Did they not teach grammar where you went to school.   Someone call Betsy and report this travesty.
> 
> Using twisted grammar to deny the presence of the prefatory clause is not simply an interpretation of the stated clause but an amendment to 2ndA.


So what's the legal impact of clause?  I'm dying to see it.

Where did I use "twisted grammar?"  I don't deny that it exists.  I simply point out that it has no legal impact.  It's explanatory.  It mandates no behavior.


----------



## M14 Shooter

BLUE COLLAR said:


> We both know what it says but you choose to ignore the REASON for the 2ndA.  It was given to accommodate a well-regulated militia.


The right to keep and bear arms as protected by the 2nd belongs to the people.
Says so right in the text.
Not the militia.
Not the people in the militia, 
The people.
Thus, any reference to "well regulated militia" is irrelevant when discussing who holds the right to keep and bear arms as protected by the 2nd.


BLUE COLLAR said:


> If it was granted purely as individual right...


The 2nd Amendment does not grant any rights.


----------



## M14 Shooter

BLUE COLLAR said:


> Let's just say that I refuse to allow you to pick them.





BLUE COLLAR said:


> I also refuse to ignore the opening clause in the 2ndA.  Why do you ignore it?


QED.


----------



## bripat9643

BLUE COLLAR said:


> So, by your reasoning we've always had all those rights?  Did blacks also have them?  Sorry, but the Constitution and the Rule of Law guarantee them (or at least try).
> 
> I think what you mean is that we should have always had certain rights.
> 
> However, I would add that with rights come responsibilities.  Is it not reasonable that I should have the right to swing my arms through the air?  But what if my fist come in contact with your mug?  What if guns come into the hands of criminals, or the insane, via private party sales?  Shall we not be responsible and end such lunacy - or at least make a reasonable effort to slow it down?


The arrest the criminals.  What "lunacy?"


----------



## M14 Shooter

BLUE COLLAR said:


> Well, stiffer gun laws are certainly not going to eliminate gun violence (or mass shootings) - but they help.


Demonstrate this to be true.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *So, by your reasoning we've always had all those rights?*
> 
> Yup.


Always is a long time which means you'd have an impossible task of proving out.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

M14 Shooter said:


> Demonstrate this to be true.


"The U.S. has the 32nd-highest rate of deaths from gun violence in the world: 3.96 deaths per 100,000 people in 2019. That was more than eight times as high as the rate in Canada, which had 0.47 deaths per 100,000 people — and nearly 100 times higher than in the United Kingdom, which had 0.04 deaths per 100,000."








						Gun violence deaths: how the U.S. compares with the rest of the world
					

The grim news of mass shootings in Uvalde, Texas, and Buffalo, New York, has again cast a spotlight on the gun violence death rate in the U.S., which is higher than much of the world.




					www.npr.org
				




Care to guess who has more lenient gun regulation?


----------



## Orangecat

BLUE COLLAR said:


> So, you confess that a well-regulated militia is the reason for granting the right to bear arms?


The Constitution doesn't "grant" rights, it recognizes pre-existing rights and forbids the government from infringing upon them. 
I am a well regulated militia of one, btw. Don't tread on me.


----------



## Orangecat

BLUE COLLAR said:


> Not only will it be overturned but you will register your toys, prove your proficiency with same and report all private party sales (especially to the Cartel and other criminals).  Otherwise, you are free to keep your toys (in a locked cabinet), defend your person/home, and go Duck Slaughtering with the ghost of Scalise... maybe Dick Cheney will tag along, have a few drinks, shoot someone in the face and leave the scene of the crime.


You're ridiculous.


----------



## Orangecat

BLUE COLLAR said:


> In who's dictionary?


The word is "whose", you illiterate imbecile.


----------



## Orangecat

BLUE COLLAR said:


> Bang-bang, they shot the babies dead!


Call them "late term abortions" if it makes you feel better.


----------



## Orangecat

BLUE COLLAR said:


> Did they not teach grammar where you went to school.


They taught me that questions end with question marks.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

Orangecat said:


> The word is "whose", you illiterate imbecile.


My mistake just as it was your mistake to refer to someone as illiterate after responding to something they wrote.  Care to review the definition of illiterate?


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

Orangecat said:


> They taught me that questions end with question marks.


Did they teach you the meaning of illiterate?


----------



## Orangecat

BLUE COLLAR said:


> My mistake just as it was your mistake to refer to someone as illiterate after responding to something they wrote.  Care to review the definition of illiterate?


I gave you a pass on "congrads", you illiterate imbecile. There is no "d" in "congratulations.


BLUE COLLAR said:


> Congrads...


----------



## Orangecat

BLUE COLLAR said:


> Did they teach you the meaning of illiterate?


You're exemplifying for me, kid.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

Orangecat said:


> Call them "late term abortions" if it makes you feel better.


Why would that make me feel better?  Oh, I get it.  You're making an assumption about my position on abortion.   Is that similar to a strawman argument?


----------



## Orangecat

BLUE COLLAR said:


> Why would that make me feel better?  Oh, I get it.  You're making an assumption about my position on abortion.   Is that similar to a strawman argument?


I just gave you a suggestion. Think of guns like aborrtions: if you don't want one, don't get one. Otherwise, MYOFB.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

Orangecat said:


> I gave you a pass on "congrads", you illiterate imbecile. There is no "g" in "congratulations.


I think you stepped in something.


----------



## Orangecat

BLUE COLLAR said:


> I think you stepped in something.


I call BS on you claiming the ability to think.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

Orangecat said:


> I just gave you a suggestion. Think of guns like aborrtions: if you don't want one, don't get one. Otherwise, MYOFB.


What you did is draw a position for me to defend.  How sophomoric of you.

Oh, and you misspelled abortions.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

BLUE COLLAR said:


> The language of the 2ndA does not guarantee an individual right to bear arms.  The prefatory clause qualifies the right as a matter of the need for a "well regulated militia".
> 
> Yes, an activist court interpreted a stand-alone individual right by ignoring the prefatory clause which proves only that high school grammar is not taught in law school.
> 
> Unless you re-write the 2ndA which would require a 2/3 majority vote, the prefatory justification in the 2ndA can only be ignored by practicing deceit or ignorance.
> 
> Of course, the kind of errors in rational thought displayed in the Heller Case are eventually overcome, and hence, I suggest that the gun lobby prepare themselves for the application of regulations as prescribed by the 2ndA.


Correct.

Until 2008 the Second Amendment codified a collective right.

An activist Court also ignored the history of the Amendment and the Framers’ original intent:

_‘Heller_ is not bad history because it rules that individuals had the right to bear arms outside of participation in the militia. It is bad history because it viewed the individual right to bear arms as _why_ the amendment was written in the first place; it is bad history in its claim that the Second Amendment protected “_only_ individuals’ liberty to keep and carry arms.” [emphasis added]. With this approach, Scalia shifted the decision from a questionable but defensible answer to the question the court had been asked, to a mischaracterization of the nature of the amendment itself. That mischaracterization, rather than the decision itself, is what makes _Heller_ such bad history.’









						Why Heller Is Such Bad History
					






					firearmslaw.duke.edu
				




It was, however, the original intent of the Framers that the Supreme Court determine what the Constitution means, including the Second Amendment – and hence we have an individual right.


----------



## Orangecat

BLUE COLLAR said:


> What you did is draw a position for me to defend.  How sophomoric of you.
> 
> Oh, and you misspelled abortions.


Ahh, a typo. 
Kinda like "whose" and "who's"? 
No, that's just ignorance.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

Orangecat said:


> I call BS on you claiming the ability to think.


I call BS on yours.  BFD.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Correct.
> 
> Until 2008 the Second Amendment codified a collective right.
> 
> An activist Court also ignored the history of the Amendment and the Framers’ original intent:
> 
> _‘Heller_ is not bad history because it rules that individuals had the right to bear arms outside of participation in the militia. It is bad history because it viewed the individual right to bear arms as _why_ the amendment was written in the first place; it is bad history in its claim that the Second Amendment protected “_only_ individuals’ liberty to keep and carry arms.” [emphasis added]. With this approach, Scalia shifted the decision from a questionable but defensible answer to the question the court had been asked, to a mischaracterization of the nature of the amendment itself. That mischaracterization, rather than the decision itself, is what makes _Heller_ such bad history.’
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why Heller Is Such Bad History
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> firearmslaw.duke.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was, however, the original intent of the Framers that the Supreme Court determine what the Constitution means, including the Second Amendment – and hence we have an individual right.


Yes, for the time being you have that right.

But then, the only constant in the universe is change.


----------



## Orangecat

BLUE COLLAR said:


> I call BS on yours.  BFD.


I like that you go into attack mode instead of defense. If you were intelligent enough to compete at an adult level, I'd be entertained.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

Orangecat said:


> Ahh, a typo.
> Kinda like "whose" and "who's"?
> No, that's just ignorance.


Your first two lines are incomplete sentences.


----------



## Orangecat

BLUE COLLAR said:


> Your first two lines are incomplete sentences.


"Who's" first two lines?
Truth be told, you're neither intelligent nor witty enough to be interesting. 
If you want my guns, come get them. You won't like the outcome.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

Orangecat said:


> I like that you go into attack mode instead of defense. If you were intelligent enough to compete at an adult level, I'd be entertained.


If you were intelligent enough to make an argument rather than play school marm in a rapid-fire medium, I might be inclined to find amusement.


----------



## Orangecat

BLUE COLLAR said:


> If you were intelligent enough to make an argument rather than play school marm in a rapid-fire medium, I might be inclined to find amusement.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

Orangecat said:


> "Who's" first two lines?
> Truth be told, you're neither intelligent nor witty enough to be interesting.
> If you want my guns, come get them. You won't like the outcome.


Do you always start and end your arguments with opinion?


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

Orangecat said:


> "Who's" first two lines?
> Truth be told, you're neither intelligent nor witty enough to be interesting.
> If you want my guns, come get them. You won't like the outcome.


Only an arrogant asshole judges whether people are interesting on merit of intellect and wit.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

Orangecat said:


> You're exemplifying for me, kid.


I wish I were a kid, kiddo.


----------



## Orangecat

BLUE COLLAR said:


> Do you always start and end your arguments with opinion?


I taught you to use question marks, so some good came of your whiny gun rant.


----------



## Orangecat

BLUE COLLAR said:


> Only an arrogant asshole judges whether people are interesting on merit of intellect and wit.


As you judge me. Lol.


----------



## Orangecat

BLUE COLLAR said:


> I wish I were a kid, kiddo.


Nice response, PeeWee.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

Orangecat said:


> As you judge me. Lol.


No, that to which you replied was done with a minimum of personal affront.  I commented on your remark about wit and intelligence without addressing you with as much as a personal pronoun.


----------



## Orangecat

BLUE COLLAR said:


> No, that to which you replied was done with a minimum of personal affront.  I commented on your remark about wit and intelligence without addressing you with as much as a personal pronoun.


It was a passive/aggressive way of calling me an arrogant asshole. Don't act as if it wasn't.
Give it a rest, kid. No one cares about our bickering or your views on gun control.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

Orangecat said:


> I taught you to use question marks, so some good came of your whiny gun rant.


That is a silly charge.  

There are many examples of my using question-marks that predate your citing my having missed one.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

Orangecat said:


> It was a passive/aggressive way of calling me an arrogant asshole. Don't act as if it wasn't.
> Give it a rest, kid. *No one cares* about our bickering or your views on gun control.


So then, why do you address it?


----------



## M14 Shooter

BLUE COLLAR said:


> "The U.S. has the 32nd-highest rate of deaths from gun violence in the world: 3.96 deaths per 100,000 people in 2019. That was more than eight
> Care to guess who has more lenient gun regulation


You present a _post hoc_ fallacy, not a demonstration of the necessary relationship you claim.
That us, you argue cause and effect; as your proof, you present correlation = causation.
Feel free to try again.


----------



## M14 Shooter

BLUE COLLAR said:


> Nothing provided above explains why you ignore the prefatory clause and its purpose in the 2ndA.


As you did not in any way even try to address the quote I provided, I shall accept your agreement that it is sound.

To your complaint above:
See below.
Please demonstrate the argument to be unsound.
3. Relationship between Prefatory Clause and     Operative Clause

We reach the question, then: Does the preface fit with an operative clause that creates an individual right to keep and bear arms?  It fits perfectly, once one knows the history that the founding generation knew and that we have described above.  That history showed that the way tyrants had eliminated a militia consisting of all the able-bodied men was not by banning the militia but simply by taking away the people’s arms, enabling a select militia or standing army to suppress political opponents.  This is what had occurred in England that prompted codification of the right to have arms in the English Bill of Rights.

The debate with respect to the right to keep and bear arms, as with other guarantees in the Bill of Rights, was not over whether it was desirable (all agreed that it was) but over whether it needed to be codified in the Constitution.  During the 1788 ratification debates, the fear that the federal government would disarm the people in order to impose rule through a standing army or select militia was pervasive in Antifederalist rhetoric.  See, _e.g._, Letters from The Federal Farmer III (Oct. 10, 1787), in 2 The Complete Anti-Federalist 234, 242 (H. Storing ed. 1981).  John Smilie, for example, worried not only that Congress’s “command of the militia” could be used to create a “select militia,” or to have “no militia at all,” but also, as a separate concern, that “[w]hen a select militia is formed; the people in general may be disarmed.”  2 Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution 508–509 (M. Jensen ed. 1976) (hereinafter Documentary Hist.).  Federalists responded that because Congress was given no power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, such a force could never oppress the people.   See, _e.g._, A Pennsylvanian III (Feb. 20, 1788), in The Origin of the Second Amendment  275, 276 (D. Young ed., 2d ed. 2001) (hereinafter Young); White, To the Citizens of Virginia, Feb. 22, 1788, in _id._, at 280, 281; A Citizen of America, (Oct. 10, 1787) in _id._, at 38, 40; Remarks on the Amendments to the federal Constitution, Nov. 7, 1788, in _id._, at 556.  It was understood across the political spectrum that the right helped to secure the ideal of a citizen militia, which might be necessary to oppose an oppressive military force if the constitutional order broke down.

*It is therefore entirely sensible that the Second Amendment ’s prefatory clause announces the purpose for which the right was codified: to prevent elimination of the militia.  The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting.  But the threat that the new Federal Government would destroy the citizens’ militia by taking away their arms was the reason that right—unlike some other English rights—was codified in a written Constitution.  Justice Breyer’s assertion that individual self-defense is merely a “subsidiary interest” of the right to keep and bear arms, see post, at 36, is profoundly mistaken.  He bases that assertion solely upon the prologue—but that can only show that self-defense had little to do with the right’s codification; it was the central component of the right itself.*


----------



## M14 Shooter

BLUE COLLAR said:


> We both know what it says but you choose to ignore the REASON for the 2ndA.  It was given to accommodate a well-regulated militia.  If


The right to keep and bear arms as protected by the 2nd belongs to the people.
Says so right in the text.
Not the militia.
Not the people in the militia, 
The people.
Thus, any reference to "well regulated militia" is irrelevant when discussing who holds the right to keep and bear arms as protected by the 2nd.


BLUE COLLAR said:


> it was granted purely as individual right, the prefatory clause would not be there.  But wait, there it is!


The 2nd Amendment does not grant any rights.


----------



## Orangecat

BLUE COLLAR said:


> So then, why do you address it?


Just stringing you along.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

Orangecat said:


> It was a passive/aggressive way of calling me an arrogant asshole. Don't act as if it wasn't.
> Give it a rest, kid. No one cares about our bickering or your views on gun control.


You addressed me first, you set the tone between us.  

I was particularly disturbed by the comment comparing abortions to taking out a mother and child with a single shot.  I believe you equated it with "late term abortion."   Be reminded that you don't know my stand on abortion but appear to rely upon ignorant generalizing. 

Perhaps had you been in Pinkville that day, you wouldn't find it a source of humor.  On the other hand, there were more than a few trigger men.  Such animals do exist.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

M14 Shooter said:


> The right to keep and bear arms as protected by the 2nd belongs to the people.
> Says so right in the text.
> Not the militia.
> Not the people in the militia,
> The people.
> Thus, any reference to "well regulated militia" is irrelevant when discussing who holds the right to keep and bear arms as protected by the 2nd.
> 
> The 2nd Amendment does not grant any rights.


Let's boil this down to what should be more important to both of us.  

You want to keep your guns, and most people who want reasonable gun laws (myself included) do not object.  We simply want a rational conversation about how we might make some dent in gun violence.  May I suggest that it would be in your interest to cooperate.  On the order of two-thirds of all voters support the exploration of reasonable gun regulation.  Where will your gun rights go if you continue to buck those odds?


----------



## M14 Shooter

BLUE COLLAR said:


> Let's boil this down to what should be more important to both of us.


I accept your concession of the point.


----------



## M14 Shooter

BLUE COLLAR said:


> May I suggest that it would be in your interest to cooperate


Or.... what?
Why should we agree to unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms?


BLUE COLLAR said:


> .  On the order of two-thirds of all voters support the exploration of reasonable gun regulation.  Where will your gun rights go if you continue to buck those odds?


"Shall not be infringed"


----------



## bripat9643

BLUE COLLAR said:


> Let's boil this down to what should be more important to both of us.
> 
> You want to keep your guns, and most people who want reasonable gun laws (myself included) do not object.  We simply want a rational conversation about how we might make some dent in gun violence.  May I suggest that it would be in your interest to cooperate.  On the order of two-thirds of all voters support the exploration of reasonable gun regulation.  Where will your gun rights go if you continue to buck those odds?


Whenever we propose something, douchebags like you object.  Like when we proposed allowing teachers with permits to carry in the classroom.


----------



## M14 Shooter

bripat9643 said:


> Whenever we propose something, douchebags like you object.  Like when we proposed allowing teachers with permits to carry in the classroom.


Because they are only interested in "solutions" which serve to make it hard as possible for the law abiding to exercie their right to keep and bear arms.


----------



## Orangecat

BLUE COLLAR said:


> I was particularly disturbed by the comment comparing abortions to taking out a mother and child with a single shot.


Tissue?


----------



## Orangecat

BLUE COLLAR said:


> We simply want a rational conversation about how we might make some dent in gun violence.


Is someone stopping you from having your conversation? Go the fuck ahead.
The problem arises when your "conversation" results in an unconstitutional infringement upon our rights.


----------



## AZrailwhale

Vrenn said:


> Believe it or not, that applied for the formation of the Continental Congress and was used again to abolish it to form the United States of America.  They found that the CC was equal to dishwater and didn't work and had to be thrown out and reintroduced as a stronger federal government.  They were right.  What came out is the US Constitution based on the Bill of Rights which was lifted from the British Bill of Rights dated 1689 for about the same reason that the US Bill of Rights was being adopted.  Unfortunately, the British rarely applied it to colonial states where the Monarch was unopposed.
> 
> The 2nd amendment legacy goes all the way back to 1215, the Magna Carta.  The Magna Carta was the first time that it was written into law that a soldier, when leaving service, could keep his sword.  It also allowed civilians to own cannons.  War was expensive and any help the civilians could give to the king in supplying an army was greatly appreciated when a neighboring kingdom invaded.  Here is the reality.  Most Soldiers were Farmers who would take their swords home and reforge them into something more useful like a plow or farm tool.  As for the Cannons, it took a very rich person to have a fully functional cannon back then.   Usually, it was a Duke, Baron or the like.  The Cannon had to be kept up and fired on a regular basis.  On hard times, the Duke or Baron would have it reforged into something else.  You see, iron of that quality was scarce and expensive.
> 
> Civilian Weapons from 1215 to 1700 usually comprised of daggers, not firearms.  A Dagger had other uses other than killing.  Or a hunting knife.  But to be truthful, I would rather face a Dagger than a pissed off farmer with a Pike to dig a hole with.  When Firearms surfaced, they were single shot and it took time to reload them.  I would rather face a musket than an Indian with a quiver full of Arrows who can get off many more shots per minute just as accurate with equal or better range.  The 2nd Amendment didn't say anything about firearms because firearms were NOT the strongest weapons quite yet.  But it was the easiest for the founding fathers to use without developing any skills like shooting a bow and arrow.  So the 2nd amendment was no foul now harm at the time.
> 
> What it didn't predict was the 1851 Walker Colt.  The first multiple shot production weapon.  What followed was a huge increase in other weapons coming out.  Let's call it "The Weapons Revolution".  In 10 short years, the Gatlin Gun, the hotchiss Canon and the Breech Loader.  In fact, many old surplus single shot rifles   into the flintlocks were redone for the breech loader system for the Civil War.  But the Breech Loader for the Rifle was short lived.  It was replaced by the new Winchester and Henry Rifles which could fire faster, help at least 5 rounds (in the 45.100) and were lighter to carry.  These started to make their way onto the battle fields and into the west during those 10 years.
> 
> The Walker Colt was such a huge problem, at the end of the war, soldiers could keep theirs if they had possession of them.  They went west.  Here is an exerpt
> https://gun-control.procon.org/history-of-gun-control/
> *Despite images of the “Wild West” from movies, cities in the frontier often required visitors to check their guns with the sheriff before entering the town. [108] In Oct. 1876, Deadwood, Dakota Territory passed a law stating that no one could fire a gun without the mayor’s consent. [109] A sign in Dodge City, Kansas in 1879 read, “The Carrying of Fire Arms Strictly Prohibited.” [108] The first law passed in Dodge City was a gun control law that read “any person or persons found carrying concealed weapons in the city of Dodge or violating the laws of the State shall be dealt with according to law.” [108]*
> 
> They got tired of the drunken cowboys shooting up their towns and stray shots killing innocent men, women and children.  BTW, the OK Corral wasn't about Outlaws at all.  It was about the Clantons and Mcloweries refusing to disarm to enter into Tombstone.  In Dallas, if you were wearing a gun, you got one chance.  If you didn't turn it over, the Marshal just shot and killed you.  Things did finally settle down once the cowboys decided it was to their best interest to cooperate.
> 
> By today's standard, that would be going too far.  But they let the problem get way out of hand and did what they felt they needed to do.  I don't push taking away sane American's firearms.  But I do say that there is a time and a place for those firearms.  Firearms in your home or place of business will always be the exception.  (Heller V DC),  But I do hold that it should NOT be up to the Federal Government on how a state rules it's firearms unless a State becomes a huge problem in how they distribute their firearms.


You might notice that the restrictions were on VISITORS, not residents.


----------



## AMart

At  least the op is honest about their intentions, they do want to take your guns.


----------



## Ms. Turquoise

skews13 said:


> Laws about freedom of speech don’t just shift when it comes to content and context, they’re also constantly updated to address something else: technology. Radio. Movies. Television. The internet. Even comic books. All have sparked changes in what is permitted and how speech is regulated. But somehow, we pretend that guns are different; that words written when the most deadly weapon required a ramrod and black powder mean that we can’t make adjustments for a semi-automatic rifle and a 30-round clip.
> 
> The truth is that guns _are _different. Because the right to bear arms is _a lesser right_. A right that was never intended to exist at all.
> 
> What makes individual gun ownership a lesser right? It’s a right that only exists in the minds of a handful of hard-right Supreme Court justices who happen to be on the court at this moment. Until 2008, no federal court had _ever_ ruled that the Second Amendment included a right to individual gun ownership. It was always understood as it was written: Guns were allowed in individual hands as a means to supply the armed forces.
> 
> Here’s the _Milwaukee Independent_ looking at how Chief Justice Warren Burger discussed the Second Amendment.
> 
> That the Second Amendment exists at all is more an accident of timing than an attempt to put guns in the hands of every American.
> The amendment grew out of a fear that having a standing army would leave the nation open to depredations by an authoritarian leader, or that the nascent democracy would be overthrown by a military junta. To that end, they explicitly inserted the Second Amendment as an alternative means of providing national defense.
> 
> There were multiple drafts of the Second Amendment. Every one of them includes text explaining that this amendment exists only because it’s needed to provide for the nation’s defense.
> Just a year after the Constitution was ratified, George Washington nudged Congress to create an official U.S. military, but the still-fearful Congress limited that force to just few hundred soldiers and officers. It would be another six years before it was allowed to grow significantly. When war came in 1812 two things were immediately obvious: The number of soldiers then in the official U.S. military were far from enough to defend the nation, and the poorly organized civilian militias for which the Second Amendment was created were an absolute failure when it came to national defense.
> 
> In the next year, the professional military of the United States grew by over 300%. “Second Amendment solutions” were on their way out.
> The Second Amendment is failure. It _never _worked for its intended purposes. It was born from  the understandable fears of a new nation engaged in a radical new scheme. But it was a mistake. It may be the most costly mistake this nation has ever made other than failing to end slavery at the outset.
> 
> The right thing to do would be to recognize that mistake and pass a new amendment that simply ends the Second Amendment, just as the 18th Amendment was repealed by the 21st Amendment in 1933. (Take a drink.)
> 
> Instead, we get statements like this piece of profound ignorance. One that is wrong. Wrong. Wrong again. And then … still wrong.
> 
> 
> Recognizing that an actual repeal of the Second Amendment—while absolutely just—isn’t likely, the next best thing is to simply recognize that the right to individual gun ownership is _a lesser right_, one whose appearance in that useless amendment subjects it to practical constraint.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Second Amendment was a failure from the start, and should have been repealed 200 years ago
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as an unconstrained right. Speech has limits. Religion has limits. Assembly has limits. The idea that any of these things can be completely “free” of government oversight is a pipedream, and everyone from the founders to the...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dailykos.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Individual gun ownership rights are the result of a Supreme Court decision. Specifically Heller v DC
> 
> Just like abortion rights are the result of a Supreme Court decision. Specifically Roe v Wade
> 
> The current court is ready to take away Roe v Wade.
> 
> A future court can do the same with Heller v DC.


Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens wanted to repeal the 2nd Amendment.  He was a very wise man. He was not beholden to the NRA or the gun culture folks.


----------



## FA_Q2

BLUE COLLAR said:


> We simply want a rational conversation about how we might make some dent in gun violence.


I hear that a lot.

The problem is that no one is making any such proposals.  I have yet to see a proposal that actually makes any real attempt at curbing crime, just feel good measures that make it a pain for those that are law abiding.


----------



## bripat9643

Ms. Turquoise said:


> Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens wanted to repeal the 2nd Amendment.  He was a very wise man. He was not beholden to the NRA or the gun culture folks.


Go ahead.  Repeal the 2nd Amendment.  We'll see how far you get with that.


----------



## Orangecat

Ms. Turquoise said:


> Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens wanted to repeal the 2nd Amendment.  He was a very wise man. He was not beholden to the NRA or the gun culture folks.


He was also a failure in that endeavor.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

BLUE COLLAR said:


> Always is a long time which means you'd have an impossible task of proving out.



Show me which rights were given to us by the Constitution.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> it is bad history in its claim that the Second Amendment protected “_only_ individuals’ liberty to keep and carry arms.”



Who else needed that right to be protected?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Ms. Turquoise said:


> Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens wanted to repeal the 2nd Amendment.



How'd that work out for him?


----------



## Mac-7

skews13 said:


> A future court can do the same with Heller v DC.


I dont disagree with that

Today the Constitution is under attack by libs who prefer to make up the rules as they go along

Except that the Constitution, which was written by the wisest collection of men in our history, recognized the right of American citizens to self defense

Abortion on the other hand was created as s legal right by 6 blowhards on the Supreme Court

If it’s taken away by another SC that only proves what God tells us in the Bible - those who live by the sword die by the sword


----------



## beautress

skews13 said:


> Laws about freedom of speech don’t just shift when it comes to content and context, they’re also constantly updated to address something else: technology. Radio. Movies. Television. The internet. Even comic books. All have sparked changes in what is permitted and how speech is regulated. But somehow, we pretend that guns are different; that words written when the most deadly weapon required a ramrod and black powder mean that we can’t make adjustments for a semi-automatic rifle and a 30-round clip.
> 
> The truth is that guns _are _different. Because the right to bear arms is _a lesser right_. A right that was never intended to exist at all.
> 
> What makes individual gun ownership a lesser right? It’s a right that only exists in the minds of a handful of hard-right Supreme Court justices who happen to be on the court at this moment. Until 2008, no federal court had _ever_ ruled that the Second Amendment included a right to individual gun ownership. It was always understood as it was written: Guns were allowed in individual hands as a means to supply the armed forces.
> 
> Here’s the _Milwaukee Independent_ looking at how Chief Justice Warren Burger discussed the Second Amendment.
> 
> That the Second Amendment exists at all is more an accident of timing than an attempt to put guns in the hands of every American.
> The amendment grew out of a fear that having a standing army would leave the nation open to depredations by an authoritarian leader, or that the nascent democracy would be overthrown by a military junta. To that end, they explicitly inserted the Second Amendment as an alternative means of providing national defense.
> 
> There were multiple drafts of the Second Amendment. Every one of them includes text explaining that this amendment exists only because it’s needed to provide for the nation’s defense.
> Just a year after the Constitution was ratified, George Washington nudged Congress to create an official U.S. military, but the still-fearful Congress limited that force to just few hundred soldiers and officers. It would be another six years before it was allowed to grow significantly. When war came in 1812 two things were immediately obvious: The number of soldiers then in the official U.S. military were far from enough to defend the nation, and the poorly organized civilian militias for which the Second Amendment was created were an absolute failure when it came to national defense.
> 
> In the next year, the professional military of the United States grew by over 300%. “Second Amendment solutions” were on their way out.
> The Second Amendment is failure. It _never _worked for its intended purposes. It was born from  the understandable fears of a new nation engaged in a radical new scheme. But it was a mistake. It may be the most costly mistake this nation has ever made other than failing to end slavery at the outset.
> 
> The right thing to do would be to recognize that mistake and pass a new amendment that simply ends the Second Amendment, just as the 18th Amendment was repealed by the 21st Amendment in 1933. (Take a drink.)
> 
> Instead, we get statements like this piece of profound ignorance. One that is wrong. Wrong. Wrong again. And then … still wrong.
> 
> 
> Recognizing that an actual repeal of the Second Amendment—while absolutely just—isn’t likely, the next best thing is to simply recognize that the right to individual gun ownership is _a lesser right_, one whose appearance in that useless amendment subjects it to practical constraint.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Second Amendment was a failure from the start, and should have been repealed 200 years ago
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as an unconstrained right. Speech has limits. Religion has limits. Assembly has limits. The idea that any of these things can be completely “free” of government oversight is a pipedream, and everyone from the founders to the...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dailykos.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Individual gun ownership rights are the result of a Supreme Court decision. Specifically Heller v DC
> 
> Just like abortion rights are the result of a Supreme Court decision. Specifically Roe v Wade
> 
> The current court is ready to take away Roe v Wade.
> 
> A future court can do the same with Heller v DC.


Without Constitutional guarantees of the right gun ownership to protect oneself, go hunting for meat, and be a free American, we'd likely have a Putin bossing people around to go kill the neighbor country's people and steal their resources for ourselves like Russia is doing this very minute. It'd be bad for common people to go into a country that puts up an equal fight, losing thousands of lives per day and usurping the country's assets to pay for killing equipment to take out hapless neighbors. 

I choose the American Constitution and the Bill of Rights. That way, people learn a sense of responsibility to our neighbors, not just what we can take by force to leave them dead and heartbroken if they survive, and their obligational slavery to the conquering communists.

And I choose America that God has blessed due to the prayers of George Washington and other founders and defenders of this nation and land where my fathers died and mothers baked birthday cakes when we were small.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

Orangecat said:


> It was a passive/aggressive way of calling me an arrogant asshole. Don't act as if it wasn't.
> Give it a rest, kid. No one cares about our bickering or your views on gun control.


No, it was a comment on the kind of person who makes a joke out of shooting women and children.

Did you do that?  Yes, I believe that you did.  Be a good little Republican and stand accountable rather than trying to make passive-aggressive the culprit in your poor taste.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

M14 Shooter said:


> The right to keep and bear arms as protected by the 2nd belongs to the people.
> Says so right in the text.
> Not the militia.
> Not the people in the militia,
> The people.
> Thus, any reference to "well regulated militia" is irrelevant when discussing who holds the right to keep and bear arms as protected by the 2nd.
> 
> The 2nd Amendment does not grant any rights.


I know you're upset that I didn't address post #258 of which I can tell that you put a lot of effort.  I apologize but suggest that this matter really isn't that complicated.  

The 2ndA is a single sentence written very clearly.  It is not my side of the argument who wishes to dispose of part of the language in the sentence on the pretense that it violates an ancient right, on the pretense that what the founders wrote isn't what they meant.  Hogwash, they knew exactly what they were doing and exactly what they meant.  Didn't you recently plead how wise they were?


----------



## M14 Shooter

BLUE COLLAR said:


> No, it was a comment on the kind of person who makes a joke out of shooting women and children.


Better than  kind of person who uses the shooting of women and children to advance a political agenda.

Did you do that?  Yes, I believe that you did.  Be a good little Democrat and stand accountable rather than trying to make passive-aggressive the culprit in your poor taste.


----------



## M14 Shooter

BLUE COLLAR said:


> I know you're upset that I didn't address post #258 of which I can tell that you put a lot of effort.


Upset?  You did exactly as I expected.
You didn't address it because you know you cannot - to no one's surprise.

I didn't put any effort into it, other than copy/and paste the Heller opinion --which addresses your concern, in full.


----------



## M14 Shooter

BLUE COLLAR said:


> May I suggest that it would be in your interest to cooperate.


Or.... what?
Why should we agree to unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms?


BLUE COLLAR said:


> On the order of two-thirds of all voters support the exploration of reasonable gun regulation.  Where will your gun rights go if you continue to buck those odds?


"Shall not be infringed"


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

bripat9643 said:


> Whenever we propose something, douchebags like you object.  Like when we proposed allowing teachers with permits to carry in the classroom.


I can tell you are a reasonable person by your resort to name-calling. 

Teachers didn't sign on for combat.  Why don't you have teachers across the country take a vote.  Ask them if they want to carry weapons.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

M14 Shooter said:


> Upset?  You did exactly as I expected.
> You didn't address it because you know you cannot - to no one's surprise.
> 
> I didn't put any effort into it, other than copy/and paste the Heller opinion --which addresses your concern, in full.


I did address it.  I just didn't waste my time with all the hocus pocus about ancient rights.  Conferred by who?  

I also don't buy into your suggestion that the founding fathers were nitwits who included a pointless clause.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

BLUE COLLAR said:


> Teachers didn't sign on for combat.



Did they sign on for gun-free zones?


----------



## Orangecat

BLUE COLLAR said:


> No, it was a comment on the kind of person who makes a joke out of shooting women and children.
> 
> Did you do that?  Yes, I believe that you did.  Be a good little Republican and stand accountable rather than trying to make passive-aggressive the culprit in your poor taste.


STFU, moron.


----------



## M14 Shooter

BLUE COLLAR said:


> I did address it.


This is a lie, as you are fully aware of the fact you cannot in any way demonstrate the argument presented to you to be unsound.
Thus, you concern has been addressed and your complaint, negated - both in full.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

Orangecat said:


> Is someone stopping you from having your conversation? Go the fuck ahead.
> The problem arises when your "conversation" results in an unconstitutional infringement upon our rights.


Is someone stopping you from exercising your rights as they are currently guaranteed?  

Your right to bear arms flows from the need of a well-regulated militia at a time when there was no standing army.  "Shall not be abridged" does not mean unregulated.  The founding fathers were not so stupid as to contradict themselves regardless of what mass duck-murdering Scalia wrote.  You have a right to bear arms and the people have the right to regulate.  

If my conversation results in a lawful change in the law, you'll either live with it or become that which you accuse me.

If a new court overturns Heller, you'll obey the new law or find your ass in jail.  Wait, I forgot that your team only plays by the rules when it suits them.  Hence, the attempted overturn of an election on the merit of more than sixty failed court filings and firing blanks at vote re-counts.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Did they sign on for gun-free zones?


I believe that would coincide with their preferences.  Why don't you ask the teachers?   What kind of odds are you offering that a majority of teachers do not wish to play LEO?


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

Orangecat said:


> STFU, moron.


Make me.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

M14 Shooter said:


> This is a lie, as you are fully aware of the fact you cannot in any way demonstrate the argument presented to you to be unsound.
> Thus, you concern has been addressed and your complaint, negated - both in full.


The above is a lie.  You cannot demonstrate that the founding fathers were morons who lacked mastery of the English Language.  They knew full well what they wrote.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

M14 Shooter said:


> Better than  kind of person who uses the shooting of women and children to advance a political agenda.
> 
> Did you do that?  Yes, I believe that you did.  Be a good little Democrat and stand accountable rather than trying to make passive-aggressive the culprit in your poor taste.


Let's get something straight.

A few weeks ago a very sick young man waltzed into a gun shop, bought weapons and killed nineteen children.  Why was his acquisition of firearms so easy?  In part because some people find the murder of innocent children more tolerable than the inconvenience of a background check.


----------



## bripat9643

BLUE COLLAR said:


> I can tell you are a reasonable person by your resort to name-calling.
> 
> Teachers didn't sign on for combat.  Why don't you have teachers across the country take a vote.  Ask them if they want to carry weapons.


Do you actually believe you're entitled to be treated with respect?  You're a Democrat.  You use dead bodies to advance your political agenda.  Is there any kind of person on this planet who is lower than that?


----------



## Orangecat

BLUE COLLAR said:


> Your right to bear arms flows from the need of a well-regulated militia


Incorrect. I have a natural right to defend myself in whatever way I feel necessary.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Rye Catcher said:


> There is no right to murder children in school classrooms.


Protect them and stop pushing for ineffective gun control laws.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

5. A Bill for Regulating and Disciplining the Militia, 18 June 1779​








						Founders Online: 5. A Bill for Regulating and Disciplining the Militia, 18 June …
					

5. A Bill for Regulating and Disciplining the Militia, 18 June 1779




					founders.archives.gov
				




The verbiage is extensive, but the Bill does need to be read in full to appreciate what the founding fathers meant by well-regulated.

Certainly, it is nothing so trivial as what one of the local clowns described as "a well-regulated militia of one".


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

Orangecat said:


> Incorrect. I have a natural right to defend myself in whatever way I feel necessary.


You have a right to defend yourself, no question.  And, in those acts you also have an obligation not to contribute to the harm of the innocent.  Submitting to a background check, evidencing competence with your weapons along with registering and securing your weapons are examples of regulations that help protect the public.  I appreciate that such are also inconvenient.   

I have a natural right to the pursuit of happiness but that didn't stop the government from sending me to SE Asia.    It's as simple as this: If you wish to live in a civilized community, your rights will be impacted by the rights of others.  Civilization comes at a price, and it isn't just the damned taxes.


----------



## M14 Shooter

BLUE COLLAR said:


> Your right to bear arms flows from the need of a well-regulated militia at a time when there was no standing army.


And thus, the right of the people to keep and bear arms is protected.
""Right to keep and bear arms" is far more broad than "right to keep and bear arms in serviceof the militia" -- somethng that cannot exist.


BLUE COLLAR said:


> "Shall not be abridged" does not mean unregulated.


It -does- mean "free from unnecessary and ineffective restrictions" - that is, infringement.


BLUE COLLAR said:


> The founding fathers were not so stupid as to contradict themselves regardless of what mass duck-murdering Scalia wrote.  You have a right to bear arms and the people have the right to regulate.


You cannot demonstrate the contradiction you claim


BLUE COLLAR said:


> If a new court overturns Heller, you'll obey the new law or find your ass in jail.


Until then, the 2nd is there, it means something you don't like, and you don't get to ignore it.


----------



## M14 Shooter

BLUE COLLAR said:


> The above is a lie.  You cannot demonstrate that the founding fathers were morons who lacked mastery of the English Language.  They knew full well what they wrote.


When you can demonstrate their argument unsound you'll have a point.
We both know you know you cannot, and we both know you will not even try.
Your response will prove me correct.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

BLUE COLLAR said:


> I believe that would coincide with their preferences.  Why don't you ask the teachers?   What kind of odds are you offering that a majority of teachers do not wish to play LEO?


*
I believe that would coincide with their preferences. *

Did it work?


----------



## M14 Shooter

BLUE COLLAR said:


> A few weeks ago a very sick young man waltzed into a gun shop, bought weapons and killed nineteen children.


Since then, you and any number of other anti-gun loons have been standing on those bodies and bathing in their blood to push your mindless and otherwise unsellable  anti-gun agenda -- indeed, you NEED these shootings for there to be any hope of moving your agenda forward.
Glad we got that straight.


----------



## M14 Shooter

BLUE COLLAR said:


> The verbiage is extensive, but the Bill does need to be read in full to appreciate what the founding fathers meant by well-regulated.


"Well-regulated" modifies "militia".
The Second Amendment  protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home
Thus, "well-regulated" is irrelevant in a discussion about the protections afforded to the right to keep and bear arms by the 2nd.


----------



## M14 Shooter

BLUE COLLAR said:


> Submitting to a background check, evidencing competence with your weapons along with registering and securing your weapons are examples of regulations that help protect the public.  I appreciate that such are also inconvenient.


If by "inconvenient" you mean "unnecessary and ineffective', then sure.
Unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on the exercise of rights infringe upon those rights.
"Shall not be infringed".


BLUE COLLAR said:


> have a natural right to the pursuit of happiness but that didn't stop the government from sending me to SE Asia


Pursuant to another USSC ruling that you don't get to ignore just because you don't like it.


BLUE COLLAR said:


> It's as simple as this: If you wish to live in a civilized community, your rights will be impacted by the rights of others.


My exercise of my right to keep and bear arms harms no one and places no one in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger -- that is, its impacts no one.
As such, there's no demonstrable necessity to restrict it.


----------



## bripat9643

BLUE COLLAR said:


> 5. A Bill for Regulating and Disciplining the Militia, 18 June 1779​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Founders Online: 5. A Bill for Regulating and Disciplining the Militia, 18 June …
> 
> 
> 5. A Bill for Regulating and Disciplining the Militia, 18 June 1779
> 
> 
> 
> 
> founders.archives.gov
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The verbiage is extensive, but the Bill does need to be read in full to appreciate what the founding fathers meant by well-regulated.
> 
> Certainly, it is nothing so trivial as what one of the local clowns described as "a well-regulated militia of one".


Apparently not, because it doesn't mean what you claim it means.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

BLUE COLLAR said:


> You have a right to defend yourself, no question.  And, in those acts you also have an obligation not to contribute to the harm of the innocent.  Submitting to a background check, evidencing competence with your weapons along with registering and securing your weapons are examples of regulations that help protect the public.  I appreciate that such are also inconvenient.
> 
> I have a natural right to the pursuit of happiness but that didn't stop the government from sending me to SE Asia.    It's as simple as this: If you wish to live in a civilized community, your rights will be impacted by the rights of others.  Civilization comes at a price, and it isn't just the damned taxes.


No fucking no most mass shooters pass background checks. And those that didn't stole them.


----------



## Orangecat

BLUE COLLAR said:


> You have a right to defend yourself, no question.


Correct.


> And, in those acts you also have an obligation not to contribute to the harm of the innocent.


Incorrect. There is no such obligation. There are only legal consequences.


> Submitting to a background check, evidencing competence with your weapons along with registering and securing your weapons are examples of regulations that help protect the public.  .


Me doing those things does absolutely nothing to help protect the public. You can conjure up straw man scenarios where it may help, but future crimes are the domain of thought police, and not a legal reason to infringe on my natural right to defend myself and mine.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

Orangecat said:


> Tissue?


Jerk?


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

bigrebnc1775 said:


> No fucking no most mass shooters pass background checks. And those that didn't stole them.


Unless the background checks catch all or most or many mass shooters, it isn't worth the lives that would be saved?   The inconvenience isn't worth it.

What is wrong with you?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

BLUE COLLAR said:


> Unless the background checks catch all or most or many mass shooters, it isn't worth the lives that would be saved?   The inconvenience isn't worth it.
> 
> What is wrong with you?


Dude background checks have proven that they do not work


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

Orangecat said:


> Correct.
> 
> Incorrect. There is no such obligation. There are only legal consequences.
> 
> Me doing those things does absolutely nothing to help protect the public. You can conjure up straw man scenarios where it may help, but future crimes are the domain of thought police, and not a legal reason to infringe on my natural right to defend myself and mine.


Defend you and yours from what, conjured strawman scenarios?  

I've already conceded that we all have a right to defend ourselves.  However, nothing about that fact dictates that the 70% who favor reasonable weapon regulations are obligated to tolerate the way you go about defending yourself.  Besides, why would you wish to live amongst people with whom you hold so little in common?


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Dude background checks have proven that they do not work


Sorry, two kinds of states generally have lower gun violence.  The first kind are empty places like Wyoming and North Dakota.  The second kind are generally those states with sensible weapon regulations.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

BLUE COLLAR said:


> Sorry, two kinds of states generally have lower gun violence.  The first kind are empty places like Wyoming and North Dakota.  The second kind are generally those states with sensible weapon regulations.


Define sensible ?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

BLUE COLLAR said:


> Defend you and yours from what, conjured strawman scenarios?
> 
> I've already conceded that we all have a right to defend ourselves.  However, nothing about that fact dictates that the 70% who favor reasonable weapon regulations are obligated to tolerate the way you go about defending yourself.  Besides, why would you wish to live amongst people with whom you hold so little in common?


There are 25 states that are Constitutional Carry. That 70% number is a propagandized lie.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

M14 Shooter said:


> Or.... what?
> Why should we agree to unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms?
> 
> "Shall not be infringed"


You shouldn't agree to unnecessary and ineffective restrictions, but you should we willing to look at the facts and join the conversation.

"Well-regulated Militia"


----------



## bigrebnc1775

BLUE COLLAR said:


> You shouldn't agree to unnecessary and ineffective restrictions, but you should we willing to look at the facts and join the conversation.
> 
> "Well-regulated Militia"


Well regulated means in working order as to be expected.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Define sensible ?


Background checks, limits on certain kinds of combat weapons, the registering and securing of weapons.  

Off the top there will be differences of opinion.  That said, the facts of what works, and what doesn't, are available for discussion.  Reasonable people should be able to sit down and work out rational solutions.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

M14 Shooter said:


> And thus, the right of the people to keep and bear arms is protected.
> ""Right to keep and bear arms" is far more broad than "right to keep and bear arms in serviceof the militia" -- somethng that cannot exist.
> 
> It -does- mean "free from unnecessary and ineffective restrictions" - that is, infringement.
> 
> You cannot demonstrate the contradiction you claim
> 
> Until then, the 2nd is there, it means something you don't like, and you don't get to ignore it.


Again, you insult the ability of the founding fathers to have written exactly what they meant (including the prefatory clause in the 2ndA that clearly introduces the amendment's purpose).

I can and did address what you call a contradiction.  If you care to follow the link that I provided in post #298, you'll find what the founding fathers meant by a well-regulated militia.  It is not the gibberish written by the activist judge, Scalia.  

I can't speak for everyone who seeks weapon regulation.  Certainly, there will be those who take things too far - just as there are those on the other side who go too far with defining their rights.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

M14 Shooter said:


> When you can demonstrate their argument unsound you'll have a point.
> We both know you know you cannot, and we both know you will not even try.
> Your response will prove me correct.


I'm not attacking the founding father's reasonings.  You are.  I'm not the one tossing part of what is written in the 2ndA.

Check the link at post #298.   What the founding father's meant by a well-regulated militia is on full display.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

bripat9643 said:


> Do you actually believe you're entitled to be treated with respect?  You're a Democrat.  You use dead bodies to advance your political agenda.  Is there any kind of person on this planet who is lower than that?


While I am admittedly to the left, I do not subscribe or belong to a party as I don't want anyone making my mind for me ahead of the evidence.  Quit indulging moronic generalizations about the supposed commie-left.  Military service excepted I've been self-employed my entire adult life.   

Your charge about dead bodies and advancing a political agenda is lame.  Are you suggesting that we ignore the murdered and just pretend there isn't a problem?


----------



## Orangecat

BLUE COLLAR said:


> Defend you and yours from what, conjured strawman scenarios?


I prefer to have a weapon and not need it instead of needing one and not having it. It's called being prepared. Is that a straw man scenario to you?


> Besides, why would you wish to live amongst people with whom you hold so little in common?


Such a juvenile attempt to paint me as an outsider. 
Not everyone agrees with you, either, kid. Get over yourself.


----------



## Orangecat

BLUE COLLAR said:


> Jerk?


No thanks, I don't swing that way. Try grinder.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

BLUE COLLAR said:


> Background checks, limits on certain kinds of combat weapons, the registering and securing of weapons.
> 
> Off the top there will be differences of opinion.  That said, the facts of what works, and what doesn't, are available for discussion.  Reasonable people should be able to sit down and work out rational solutions.


No you were pretty specific


BLUE COLLAR said:


> Sorry, two kinds of states generally have lower gun violence.  The first kind are empty places like Wyoming and North Dakota.  The second kind are generally those states with sensible weapon regulations.


You do realize the Buffalo shooting took place in New York state? Had all you required. FYI stop with the ignorant shit combat weapons? Unless you're saying a pistol is a combat weapon since most civilians have semiautomatic pistols and that's what the military issues. Other than that just because something looks like a military weapon doesn't make it function like one.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

bigrebnc1775 said:


> There are 25 states that are Constitutional Carry. That 70% number is a propagandized lie.


70% was a reference to people, not states.   Many of the 25 to which you refer will be light on population.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

Orangecat said:


> I prefer to have a weapon and not need it instead of needing one and not having it. It's called being prepared. Is that a straw man scenario to you?
> 
> Such a juvenile attempt to paint me as an outsider.
> Not everyone agrees with you, either, kid. Get over yourself.


Anyone who thinks it's funny to make jokes about shooting children and their mothers, is an outlier to the human race.  That would be you; it's all here on this thread.  

I don't expect everyone will agree with me.  But, in the case of the current conversation, I expect far more people to be closer to my views than yours.  After all, how many people want to identify with someone, like you, who thinks dead kids are something about which to joke?

What's with referring to me as kid?  I'm probably old enough to be your daddy.  Of course, I'm not your daddy.  You don't look Sicilian.  As a matter of fact, you don't even look human.  Wait a minute Adolfo, that fits.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

BLUE COLLAR said:


> 70% was a reference to people, not states.   Many of the 25 to which you refer will be light on population.


And their is no way in hell that 70% number is correct.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

BLUE COLLAR said:


> Anyone who thinks it's funny to make jokes about shooting children and their mothers, is an outlier to the human race.  That would be you; it's all here on this thread.
> 
> I don't expect everyone will agree with me.  But, in the case of the current conversation, I expect far more people to be closer to my views than yours.  After all, how many people want to identify with someone, like you, who thinks dead kids are something about which to joke?
> 
> What's with referring to me as kid?  I'm probably old enough to be your daddy.  Of course, I'm not your daddy.  You don't look Sicilian.  As a matter of fact, you don't even look human.  Wait a minute Adolfo, that fits.


Stop the fucking shit with the children. If you gave one ounces of concern about them you would be supporting means to protect them not leave them unprotected. It's fucking nauseating how you idiots push for things that will not nor has ever worked and then come crying we got to do it for the children. Fuck you


----------



## M14 Shooter

BLUE COLLAR said:


> You shouldn't agree to unnecessary and ineffective restrictions,...


And thus, you agree that there's no reason for us to accept the restrictions you support and seek.


BLUE COLLAR said:


> "Well-regulated Militia"


This has been addressed and dismissed any number of times - you simply refuse to accept the truth.


----------



## M14 Shooter

BLUE COLLAR said:


> Again, you insult the ability of the founding fathers to have written exactly what they meant ...


This has been addressed and dismissed any number of times - you simply refuse to accept the truth.


----------



## M14 Shooter

BLUE COLLAR said:


> I'm not attacking the founding father's reasonings.  You are.  I'm not the one tossing part of what is written in the 2ndA.
> Check the link at post #298.   What the founding father's meant by a well-regulated militia is on full display.


And thus, you prove me correct.
As expected.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

bigrebnc1775 said:


> No you were pretty specific
> 
> You do realize the Buffalo shooting took place in New York state? Had all you required. FYI stop with the ignorant shit combat weapons? Unless you're saying a pistol is a combat weapon since most civilians have semiautomatic pistols and that's what the military issues. Other than that just because something looks like a military weapon doesn't make it function like one.


Of course, NY has it's share of violence but if you compare apples to apples (i.e. a city to a city, and rural areas to rural areas), you will general discover places with common sense weapon regulation fare better when it comes to per capita violence. Don't bother to cite exceptions.  I know they exist.

I recall being told (in training) that a UH-1 equipped with a mini gun could fly over a football field and lay one round in every square foot of the field.  Let's just say that anything even approaching that kind of military weapon is not appropriate in private hands.  While the attraction of a pistol for personal protection is obvious, but I'm told that their effectiveness outside of about thirty feet is greatly exaggerated - particularly in the shaking hand of a novice.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

M14 Shooter said:


> This has been addressed and dismissed any number of times - you simply refuse to accept the truth.


How odd, I feel the same way, about you.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

M14 Shooter said:


> And thus, you prove me correct.
> As expected.


Why so sublime?

You haven't showed me a damn thing except gibberish from Scalia that conflicts with what the "founding fathers" defined (see Post #298) as a well-regulated militia.


----------



## M14 Shooter

BLUE COLLAR said:


> Of course, NY has it's share of violence but if you compare apples to apples (i.e. a city to a city, and rural areas to rural areas), you will general discover places with common sense weapon regulation fare better when it comes to per capita violence.


The fact there is no sense, common or otherwise, to be found in unnecessary and ineffective rstrictions on the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms by the law abiding aside......

This is where I ask you to demonstrate the necessary relationship between the regulations you cite and the lower violent crime rates you claim.
In your response, you will fail to do so.


BLUE COLLAR said:


> I recall being told (in training) that a UH-1 equipped with a mini gun could fly over a football field and lay one round in every square foot of the field.  Let's just say that anything even approaching that kind of military weapon is not appropriate in private hands.


And yet, they are.   








						Minigun For Sale | Buy M134 Minigun For Sale Online
					

Minigun For Sale. We have a fully transferable GE M134 mini gun for sale that is in excellent condition. This gun comes with the..




					legitarmsdealer.com
				





BLUE COLLAR said:


> While the attraction of a pistol for personal protection is obvious, but I'm told that their effectiveness outside of about thirty feet is greatly exaggerated - particularly in the shaking hand of a novice.


So?


----------



## M14 Shooter

BLUE COLLAR said:


> How odd, I feel the same way, about you.


I'm sorry you don't like the fact your argument has been, repeatedly, demonstrated unsound, but there's nothing I can do about it.


----------



## M14 Shooter

BLUE COLLAR said:


> You haven't showed me a damn thing except gibberish from Scalia....


Funny how you call it gibberish, but have no capacity to demonstrate what he said to be wrong.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Stop the fucking shit with the children. If you gave one ounces of concern about them you would be supporting means to protect them not leave them unprotected. It's fucking nauseating how you idiots push for things that will not nor has ever worked and then come crying we got to do it for the children. Fuck you


Well, fuck you and the broken down mule you rode to town.

Many of my references to murdered children simply targeted one here who found what happened at My Lai 4 to be a source of humor.  I object and if that ruffles your feathers, you can shit and fall back in it.

I'll tell you what is nauseating, your twisted notion that pointing civilization in the direction of an armed encampment is the defining solution.  How many guns do small-dicked assholes need to feel safe?    

I'll concede that addressing that children, and the public in general, not be unprotected is part of the equation though not to the extremes that you'd probably push.  However, unlike you, I'm not going to ignore the other side of the equation.  So, if my mentioning the murders bothers you, tough shit.

Btw, just who is going to pay all the new taxes necessary to fund your armed encampment?  It sure as hell isn't going to be the teat-sucking red states.  Typically, less than a dozen and a half states operate in the red with the federal government. Those states are almost exclusively blue.  If the nation were divided into blue and red, the United States of Conservative America wouldn't be able to fund an army.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

M14 Shooter said:


> I'm sorry you don't like the fact your argument has been, repeatedly, demonstrated unsound, but there's nothing I can do about it.


Who the hell died and left you in charge?


----------



## M14 Shooter

BLUE COLLAR said:


> Who the hell died and left you in charge?


Nothing here changes the fact your argument has been, repeatedly, demonstrated unsound, 
You may not like it, but there's nothing you can do about it.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

BLUE COLLAR said:


> Well, fuck you and the broken down mule you rode to town.
> 
> Many of my references to murdered children simply targeted one here who found what happened at My Lai 4 to be a source of humor.  I object and if that ruffles your feathers, you can shit and fall back in it.
> 
> I'll tell you what is nauseating, your twisted notion that pointing civilization in the direction of an armed encampment is the defining solution.  How many guns do small-dicked assholes need to feel safe?
> 
> I'll concede that addressing that children, and the public in general, not be unprotected is part of the equation though not to the extremes that you'd probably push.  However, unlike you, I'm not going to ignore the other side of the equation.  So, if my mentioning the murders bothers you, tough shit.
> 
> Btw, just who is going to pay all the new taxes necessary to fund your armed encampment?  It sure as hell isn't going to be the teat-sucking red states.  Typically, less than a dozen and a half states operate in the red with the federal government. Those states are almost exclusively blue.  If the nation were divided into blue and red, the United States of Conservative America wouldn't be able to fund an army.


Blow it out your ass you'll get no sympathy from me. You want dead kids That's what you'll get.


----------



## M14 Shooter

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Blow it out your ass you'll get no sympathy from me. You want dead kids That's what you'll get.


Of course they do - it's the only way they can advance their agenda.


----------



## Sunsettommy

BLUE COLLAR said:


> Does gun registration make you unsafe?



It doesn't prevent gun related crimes thus not worth the expense to make one.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

BLUE COLLAR said:


> Does gun registration make you unsafe?


It doesn't make you safe


----------



## bripat9643

bigrebnc1775 said:


> It doesn't make you safe


Yes, it gives government the ability to determine everyone who has a gun.


----------



## M14 Shooter

bripat9643 said:


> Yes, it gives government the ability to determine everyone who has a gun.


Which is why anti-gun loons like it.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Blow it out your ass you'll get no sympathy from me. You want dead kids That's what you'll get.


I don't want or need your sympathy.  

You are the one who tolerates dead kids, many of which could be avoided if it weren't more important for you to avoid the inconvenience regulations that would not interfere with you9r right to [lay cowboys and indians.

Big Reb in North Carolina, fuck you and your confederate flag.  

Wow, look where the conversation has gone since I started returning fire on the insults.  I'll confess that calling you an asshole is a lot easier than rational conversation.


----------



## M14 Shooter

BLUE COLLAR said:


> You are the one who tolerates dead kids, many of which could be avoided if it weren't more important for you to avoid the inconvenience regulations that would not interfere with you9r right to [lay cowboys and indians.


Says he who uses dead kids to push unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on the rights of the law abiding.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

bigrebnc1775 said:


> It doesn't make you safe


Sure it does.

Golly Gomer, it's so much easier to make arguments the way you guys do.  Just open and close with a lame opinion.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

M14 Shooter said:


> Says he who uses dead kids to push unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on the rights of the law abiding.


I haven't pushed anything but discourse. 

I think what's bothering you is what my brother calls "consciousness of guilt".


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

bripat9643 said:


> Yes, it gives government the ability to determine everyone who has a gun.


No, it does not.


----------



## M14 Shooter

BLUE COLLAR said:


> I haven't pushed anything but discourse.


-snort-
Even you don't believe that.


BLUE COLLAR said:


> I think what's bothering you is what my brother calls "consciousness of guilt".


For no rational reason whatsoever.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

BLUE COLLAR said:


> Sure it does.
> 
> Golly Gomer, it's so much easier to make arguments the way you guys do.  Just open and close with a lame opinion.


Irony is an antiguner who doesn't have a clue on gun calling an expert word as a lame opinion. Leaving kids unprotected for creating more failed gun laws does nothing but get kids killed. Biden wants to take a few lessons from Trudeau. Trudeau said s person could not defend themselves with a gun.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

BLUE COLLAR said:


> I don't want or need your sympathy.
> 
> You are the one who tolerates dead kids, many of which could be avoided if it weren't more important for you to avoid the inconvenience regulations that would not interfere with you9r right to [lay cowboys and indians.
> 
> Big Reb in North Carolina, fuck you and your confederate flag.
> 
> Wow, look where the conversation has gone since I started returning fire on the insults.  I'll confess that calling you an asshole is a lot easier than rational conversation.


Asshat look at the year 1775  it doesn't say 1861. I don't tolerate dead children but you sure in hell does. You can't make a rational discussion and support gun control because it's not rational.


----------



## Orangecat

BLUE COLLAR said:


> Anyone who thinks it's funny to make jokes about shooting children and their mothers, is an outlier to the human race.  That would be you; it's all here on this thread.


Nice opinion, spud.


> I don't expect everyone will agree with me.  But, in the case of the current conversation, I expect far more people to be closer to my views than yours.  After all, how many people want to identify with someone, like you, who thinks dead kids are something about which to joke?


That's the difference between you and I. I don't base my views on how popular they might be with the masses. Your intellectual insecurity prevents you from doing so.


> What's with referring to me as kid?


You post like a child, regardless of your actual age.


> I'm probably old enough to be your daddy.


You'd be dead.


> Of course, I'm not your daddy.  You don't look Sicilian.  As a matter of fact, you don't even look human.  Wait a minute Adolfo, that fits.


Babble much? Lulz.


----------



## Orangecat

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Stop the fucking shit with the children.


That imbecile has been bitch-slapped so silly in this thread that he has to resort to the typical virtue signaling appeals to emotion.


----------



## Orangecat

BLUE COLLAR said:


> How many guns do small-dicked assholes need to feel safe?


How many do you have?


----------



## Orangecat

BLUE COLLAR said:


> you9r right to [lay cowboys and indians.


Lulz.


----------



## Frankeneinstein

skews13 said:


> Laws about freedom of speech don’t just shift when it comes to content and context, they’re also constantly updated to address something else: technology. Radio. Movies. Television. The internet. Even comic books. All have sparked changes in what is permitted and how speech is regulated. But somehow, we pretend that guns are different; that words written when the most deadly weapon required a ramrod and black powder mean that we can’t make adjustments for a semi-automatic rifle and a 30-round clip.
> 
> The truth is that guns _are _different. Because the right to bear arms is _a lesser right_. A right that was never intended to exist at all.
> 
> What makes individual gun ownership a lesser right? It’s a right that only exists in the minds of a handful of hard-right Supreme Court justices who happen to be on the court at this moment. Until 2008, no federal court had _ever_ ruled that the Second Amendment included a right to individual gun ownership. It was always understood as it was written: Guns were allowed in individual hands as a means to supply the armed forces.
> 
> Here’s the _Milwaukee Independent_ looking at how Chief Justice Warren Burger discussed the Second Amendment.
> 
> That the Second Amendment exists at all is more an accident of timing than an attempt to put guns in the hands of every American.
> The amendment grew out of a fear that having a standing army would leave the nation open to depredations by an authoritarian leader, or that the nascent democracy would be overthrown by a military junta. To that end, they explicitly inserted the Second Amendment as an alternative means of providing national defense.
> 
> There were multiple drafts of the Second Amendment. Every one of them includes text explaining that this amendment exists only because it’s needed to provide for the nation’s defense.
> Just a year after the Constitution was ratified, George Washington nudged Congress to create an official U.S. military, but the still-fearful Congress limited that force to just few hundred soldiers and officers. It would be another six years before it was allowed to grow significantly. When war came in 1812 two things were immediately obvious: The number of soldiers then in the official U.S. military were far from enough to defend the nation, and the poorly organized civilian militias for which the Second Amendment was created were an absolute failure when it came to national defense.
> 
> In the next year, the professional military of the United States grew by over 300%. “Second Amendment solutions” were on their way out.
> The Second Amendment is failure. It _never _worked for its intended purposes. It was born from  the understandable fears of a new nation engaged in a radical new scheme. But it was a mistake. It may be the most costly mistake this nation has ever made other than failing to end slavery at the outset.
> 
> The right thing to do would be to recognize that mistake and pass a new amendment that simply ends the Second Amendment, just as the 18th Amendment was repealed by the 21st Amendment in 1933. (Take a drink.)
> 
> Instead, we get statements like this piece of profound ignorance. One that is wrong. Wrong. Wrong again. And then … still wrong.
> 
> 
> Recognizing that an actual repeal of the Second Amendment—while absolutely just—isn’t likely, the next best thing is to simply recognize that the right to individual gun ownership is _a lesser right_, one whose appearance in that useless amendment subjects it to practical constraint.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Second Amendment was a failure from the start, and should have been repealed 200 years ago
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as an unconstrained right. Speech has limits. Religion has limits. Assembly has limits. The idea that any of these things can be completely “free” of government oversight is a pipedream, and everyone from the founders to the...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dailykos.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Individual gun ownership rights are the result of a Supreme Court decision. Specifically Heller v DC
> 
> Just like abortion rights are the result of a Supreme Court decision. Specifically Roe v Wade
> 
> The current court is ready to take away Roe v Wade.
> 
> A future court can do the same with Heller v DC.


This is what happens when communists interpret the constitution...
...'what it says is false and the truth lies in what it what it does not say'


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

bigrebnc1775 said:


> It doesn't make you safe


But it makes you safer (I don't deal; in absolutes).


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

Orangecat said:


> Nice opinion, spud.
> 
> That's the difference between you and I. I don't base my views on how popular they might be with the masses. Your intellectual insecurity prevents you from doing so.
> 
> You post like a child, regardless of your actual age.
> 
> You'd be dead.
> 
> Babble much? Lulz.


You are full of empty opinions. Have you anything on the order of premise, premise, conclusion?

I'd be dead?  You must really be old.  I have noticed that most of your ideas are stale.  I think you did say one half-intelligent thing.   Nah, that's not likely.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

Orangecat said:


> That imbecile has been bitch-slapped so silly in this thread that he has to resort to the typical virtue signaling appeals to emotion.


More empty opinion accompanied by name-calling.  You'd think after five years in seventh grade they'd just push you through.

I've noted that not one of you tough guys had the balls to read and comment on the founding father's explanation of a well-regulated militia.  I have a question.  Was your castration done with a knife or chemicals?


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

Frankeneinstein said:


> This is what happens when communists interpret the constitution...
> ...'what it says is false and the truth lies in what it what it does not say'


I think that's because the people ignoring the actual words in the 2ndA all are brain dead.

In any case, thank you for the lucid comment.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

Orangecat said:


> Lulz.


Well, you caught me.  I fucked that one up worse than your incomplete sentences.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

BLUE COLLAR said:


> I think that's because the people ignoring the actual words in the 2ndA all are brain dead.
> 
> In any case, thank you for the lucid comment.



Which rights does the Constitution give us?


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Asshat look at the year 1775  it doesn't say 1861. I don't tolerate dead children but you sure in hell does. You can't make a rational discussion and support gun control because it's not rational.


Sure it's rational.  

Normally, I'd explain but I know you baby killers don't play that way.  So, I'm just trying to return what I get.  

Asshole, I gave you an insight to how the founding fathers viewed a "well-regulated militia" and that view contrast considerably with yours, and it really, really, really contrast with Orange Flatuence's claim to "a well-regulated militia of one".


----------



## bigrebnc1775

BLUE COLLAR said:


> But it makes you safer (I don't deal; in absolutes).


No it doesn't.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Which rights does the Constitution give us?


We're back to this?  Can't you do better than whine about give and guarantee

I have a better question.  How many people have you shot with a weapon, if any?


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

bigrebnc1775 said:


> No it doesn't.


Sure it does.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

BLUE COLLAR said:


> Sure it's rational.
> 
> Normally, I'd explain but I know you baby killers don't play that way.  So, I'm just trying to return what I get.
> 
> Asshole, I gave you an insight to how the founding fathers viewed a "well-regulated militia" and that view contrast considerably with yours, and it really, really, really contrast with Orange Flatuence's claim to "a well-regulated militia of one".


Baby killers are those who are proabortionist and gun free zone supporter's.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

BLUE COLLAR said:


> Sure it does.


If it does why are so many people killed in gun free zones?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

BLUE COLLAR said:


> We're back to this?  Can't you do better than whine about give and guarantee
> 
> I have a better question.  How many people have you shot with a weapon, if any?



All of our rights?
None of our rights?


----------



## Orangecat

BLUE COLLAR said:


> You are full of empty opinions. Have you anything on the order of premise, premise, conclusion?
> 
> I'd be dead?  You must really be old.  I have noticed that most of your ideas are stale.  I think you did say one half-intelligent thing.   Nah, that's not likely.


You project like an old Bell & Howell, kid.


----------



## Orangecat

BLUE COLLAR said:


> Was your castration done with a knife or chemicals?


Says the pussy who’s afraid of inanimate objects. Lulz.


----------



## Orangecat

BLUE COLLAR said:


> Well, you caught me.  I fucked that one up worse than your incomplete sentences.


You caught yourself when you dropped out of junior high. I’m just laughing at your intellectual impotency. 
Have you noticed that no one, not even your fellow useful idiots, are thanking your dumb posts? 
Telling, that.


----------



## M14 Shooter

BLUE COLLAR said:


> But it makes you safer (I don't deal; in absolutes).


You are full of empty opinions. Have you anything on the order of premise, premise, conclusion?
You claim a necessary relationship that you cannot demonstrate,


----------



## M14 Shooter

BLUE COLLAR said:


> I've noted that not one of you tough guys had the balls to read and comment on the founding father's explanation of a well-regulated militia.


And you have not meaningfully responded to the posts that demonstrate your position to be unsound.
I have a question.  Was your castration done with a knife or chemicals?


----------



## bripat9643

BLUE COLLAR said:


> No, it does not.


Of course it does.  All the government has to do is review the registration records.

How stupid do yo have to be to believe otherwise?


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Baby killers are those who are proabortionist and gun free zone supporter's.


In 1969 after returning from Nam, I was awarded a class date for Rotary Wing Flight School and sent to Ft Rucker, Alabama. My wife went with me, and surprise, she turned up pregnant.  However, I did not realize she was pregnant until the fetus was expelled in a toilet bowl.  Obviously, the fetus was very young - but I can't pinpoint the age.  Honestly, I can't even be sure what my wife knew that I did not.  Appreciating that everything that fetus might have become was already there, I have mused many times over what the child, who didn't make it, might have become.  It haunts me. 

While I respect a woman's rights, I could never be the one to authorize, or push for an abortion.  It's not who I am.  You should quit making assumptions about people based on ignorant generalizations.

As for gun free zones, is that what they have in TEXAS?  Regardless, free fire zones at the malls are not the solution.  There's a reason the US Military closely manages "lock and load"... perhaps you could explain that to me.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

Toddsterpatriot said:


> All of our rights?
> None of our rights?


Okay, I can see that you think you have something here - so I'll revisit.

I appreciate that you view certain rights as natural, and that the Constitution did not grant them, but rather, simply attempts to guarantee them.  I get that, but we will likely part ways because I also recognize that your rights (and mine) are "naturally" limited by the rights of others.  Do you get that, or do you think you owe no respect to the rights of others?

With every right comes a "natural" responsibility, and the application of such responsibility usually magnifies in a densely populated location.   Obviously, the responsibility may lighten if you're in the middle nowhere, perhaps Wyoming or North Dakota which serves good reason to evoke a conservative value and manage such matters closer to home, not on a national or even state level.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

BLUE COLLAR said:


> I get that, but we will likely part ways because I also recognize that your rights (and mine) are "naturally" limited by the rights of others. Do you get that, or do you think you owe no respect to the rights of others?



How are my rights to freedom of speech and freedom of religion limited by the rights of others? 
How is my right to keep and bear arms limited by the rights of others?


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

M14 Shooter said:


> And you have not meaningfully responded to the posts that demonstrate your position to be unsound.
> I have a question.  Was your castration done with a knife or chemicals?


Ignoring the castration joke that I initiated, can you be just a bit more specific about what it that I supposedly ignored?


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

Toddsterpatriot said:


> How are my rights to freedom of speech and freedom of religion limited by the rights of others?
> How is my right to keep and bear arms limited by the rights of others?


So, you're not familiar with the fact that you violate your freedom of speech if you falsely exclaim "fire" in a crowded theater?

Freedom of religion can be abused by those who would not merely practice their faith but seek to impose it on others: case in point, morning prayer in a public school.  I don't want or need God and I do not want my kids subjected to God.  Prayers can be said at home; public schools are not religious institutions. 

As for holstered six-guns on city streets, the strutting offends me, and upsets my grandkids.   I don't care to be caught in the middle of a crossfire between a nut-bag and an amateur, or two or three or four.  How many of those amateurs are well intended verses simply itching to play combat?  

It is misinformed to contend that stalking city streets and malls with a .45 revolver is the same thing as toting a thirty-aught-six in the wide-open spaces.  There are natural reasons that urban areas are usually blue, and rural areas are red.  It's that fucking simple and the cure to our differences is in the conservative value of legislating closer to home.  You are free to make your home area a free fire zone but don't expect me to visit.  Likewise, you will check your weapons when you come to Dodge.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

BLUE COLLAR said:


> So, you're not familiar with the fact that you violate your freedom of speech if you falsely exclaim "fire" in a crowded theater?
> 
> Freedom of religion can be abused by those who would not merely practice their faith but seek to impose it on others: case in point, morning prayer in a public school.  I don't want or need God and I do not want my kids subjected to God.  Prayers can be said at home; public schools are not religious institutions.
> 
> As for holstered six-guns on city streets, the strutting offends me, and upsets my grandkids.   I don't care to be caught in the middle of a crossfire between a nut-bag and an amateur, or two or three or four.  How many of those amateurs are well intended verses simply itching to play combat?
> 
> It is misinformed to contend that stalking city streets and malls with a .45 revolver is the same thing as toting a thirty-aught-six in the wide-open spaces.  There are natural reasons that urban areas are usually blue, and rural areas are red.  It's that fucking simple and the cure to our differences is in the conservative value of legislating closer to home.  You are free to make your home area a free fire zone but don't expect me to visit.  Likewise, you will check your weapons when you come to Dodge.



*So, you're not familiar with the fact that you violate your freedom of speech if you falsely exclaim "fire" in a crowded theater?*

I violate my freedom of speech? 

*Freedom of religion can be abused by those who would not merely practice their faith but seek to impose it on others:*

I have freedom of religion. When did I say I had freedom to impose on others?

*As for holstered six-guns on city streets, the strutting offends me, and upsets my grandkids. *

You can eliminate my right because "offends" and "upsets"?

* the cure to our differences is in the conservative value of legislating closer to home. *

Like with abortion?


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

M14 Shooter said:


> You are full of empty opinions. Have you anything on the order of premise, premise, conclusion?
> You claim a necessary relationship that you cannot demonstrate,


Yes, I did so claim but what you seem to have missed is that I did so in mocking another poster's lame and naked opinion.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *So, you're not familiar with the fact that you violate your freedom of speech if you falsely exclaim "fire" in a crowded theater?*
> 
> I violate my freedom of speech?
> 
> *Freedom of religion can be abused by those who would not merely practice their faith but seek to impose it on others:*
> 
> I have freedom of religion. When did I say I had freedom to impose on others?
> 
> *As for holstered six-guns on city streets, the strutting offends me, and upsets my grandkids. *
> 
> You can eliminate my right because "offends" and "upsets"?
> 
> * the cure to our differences is in the conservative value of legislating closer to home. *
> 
> Like with abortion?


You ask for examples, I gave some.  Those examples where not charges against what you personally may or may not have done.   Many posters here want to make every fucking post a personal matter, note the habit of name-calling.  While I confess having tired of such attacks and began responding in kind over the past several pages, it is not my usual style, and there is plenty of evidence on this thread to support that claim.

It isn't an issue of whether you imposed your religion.  Did Christians at one time impose their prayers in public schools?

Don't clip what I wrote and present it out of context.  "Offends and upsets" was an introduction, the meat of the argument was with not appreciating free fire zones managed by unregulated militias of unknown qualifications and motivations.  

Yes, just like with abortion.  Despite personal values, I have no interest in imposing abortion laws on the other side of the country; not because it doesn't bother me but because I know it's fruitless.  However, I will also expect that people on that other side of the country mind their own business.


----------



## M14 Shooter

BLUE COLLAR said:


> Ignoring the castration joke that I initiated, can you be just a bit more specific about what it that I supposedly ignored?


Sure.
Post 258
Post 259
And you shall now fail, yet again, to meaningfully respond


----------



## M14 Shooter

BLUE COLLAR said:


> So, you're not familiar with the fact that you violate your freedom of speech if you falsely exclaim "fire" in a crowded theater?


You do not understand the fire in a theater idiom.
You do not violate your rights at all.
You -do- falsely place others in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger when you do this.
In doing so, you could be charged with reckless endangerment or any number of similar crimes.
In your defense you cannot claim "free speech" because "free speech" does not include falsely place others in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger.

There you go.
How does this relate to the right to keep and bear arms?
What, in that context, constitutes falsely placing someone in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger?


----------



## M14 Shooter

BLUE COLLAR said:


> Yes, I did so claim but what you seem to have missed is that I did so in mocking another poster's lame and naked opinion.


^^^
Does not change the fact you claim a necessary relationship that you cannot demonstrate,


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

Orangecat said:


> Says the pussy who’s afraid of inanimate objects. Lulz.


I played your ad hominem games for a while, but no more.  It's become a bore.  So, I'll ignore your "pussy" remark.

I did my time in combat, and yes, I fear the capacity of some inanimate objects - or more accurately I fear some of the morons at the controls.  Those who do not so respect, are a big part of the problem in this country.  

However, as similarly written to another, I hold no desire to impose rules for faraway places and people.  Of course, I'll expect the same in return.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

M14 Shooter said:


> ^^^
> Does not change the fact you claim a necessary relationship that you cannot demonstrate,


Be more specific.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

M14 Shooter said:


> You do not understand the fire in a theater idiom.
> You do not violate your rights at all.
> You -do- falsely place others in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger when you do this.
> In doing so, you could be charged with reckless endangerment or any number of similar crimes.
> In your defense you cannot claim "free speech" because "free speech" does not include falsely place others in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger.
> 
> There you go.
> How does this relate to the right to keep and bear arms?
> What, in that context, constitutes falsely placing someone in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger?


Free fire zones put people at risk. 

That said, purely as matter of promoting proper grammar.  The 2ndA contains a prefatory clause, a qualifying of your right to bear arms. I presented evidence of what the founding fathers meant by a "well-regulated militia".  Read it and weep.


----------



## M14 Shooter

BLUE COLLAR said:


> Free fire zones put people at risk.


The fact "risk" is not "clear, present, and immediate danger" aside...
By "free fire zones" you mean "anywhere that's not a gun-free zone" - and as such, your claim is nonsense

So, I ask again, in reference to the concept of "clear, present an immediate danger" as applied to the 1st amendment:
How does this relate to the right to keep and bear arms?
What, in that context, constitutes falsely placing someone in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger?


----------



## M14 Shooter

BLUE COLLAR said:


> That said, purely as matter of promoting proper grammar.  The 2ndA contains a prefatory clause, a qualifying of your right to bear arms. I presented evidence of what the founding fathers meant by a "well-regulated militia".  Read it and weep.


----------



## Orangecat

BLUE COLLAR said:


> However, as similarly written to another, I hold no desire to impose rules for faraway places and people.  Of course, I'll expect the same in return.


You do you, I’ll do me. We won’t have any problems if you don’t overstep those boundaries, be it in person or via government.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

BLUE COLLAR said:


> You ask for examples, I gave some.  Those examples where not charges against what you personally may or may not have done.   Many posters here want to make every fucking post a personal matter, note the habit of name-calling.  While I confess having tired of such attacks and began responding in kind over the past several pages, it is not my usual style, and there is plenty of evidence on this thread to support that claim.
> 
> It isn't an issue of whether you imposed your religion.  Did Christians at one time impose their prayers in public schools?
> 
> Don't clip what I wrote and present it out of context.  "Offends and upsets" was an introduction, the meat of the argument was with not appreciating free fire zones managed by unregulated militias of unknown qualifications and motivations.
> 
> Yes, just like with abortion.  Despite personal values, I have no interest in imposing abortion laws on the other side of the country; not because it doesn't bother me but because I know it's fruitless.  However, I will also expect that people on that other side of the country mind their own business.



*You ask for examples, I gave some.*

I asked for examples of rights given by the Constitution.

*It isn't an issue of whether you imposed your religion.  Did Christians at one time impose their prayers in public schools?*

Did they? Do they today?

*"Offends and upsets" was an introduction,*

Yes. My right to bear arms can be reduced by your "upset".
Can my right to free speech be reduced by your upset?
And my freedom of religion?

What about double jeopardy?  

* the meat of the argument was with not appreciating free fire zones managed by unregulated militias of unknown qualifications and motivations. *

Now my rights depend on qualifications you want to impose on me?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

BLUE COLLAR said:


> a qualifying of your right to bear arms.



They were "qualifying" it, just before saying "shall not be infringed"?

You seem confused.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Toddsterpatriot said:


> They were "qualifying" it, just before saying "shall not be infringed"?
> You seem confused.


-Voluntarily- confused.


----------



## BackAgain

Do as Lurch says not as Lurch does.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

BLUE COLLAR said:


> In 1969 after returning from Nam, I was awarded a class date for Rotary Wing Flight School and sent to Ft Rucker, Alabama. My wife went with me, and surprise, she turned up pregnant.  However, I did not realize she was pregnant until the fetus was expelled in a toilet bowl.  Obviously, the fetus was very young - but I can't pinpoint the age.  Honestly, I can't even be sure what my wife knew that I did not.  Appreciating that everything that fetus might have become was already there, I have mused many times over what the child, who didn't make it, might have become.  It haunts me.
> 
> While I respect a woman's rights, I could never be the one to authorize, or push for an abortion.  It's not who I am.  You should quit making assumptions about people based on ignorant generalizations.
> 
> As for gun free zones, is that what they have in TEXAS?  Regardless, free fire zones at the malls are not the solution.  There's a reason the US Military closely manages "lock and load"... perhaps you could explain that to me.


Locked and loaded weapon is loaded round chambered and on safe. Prepared to fight. I smell bullshit anyone who has been in combat is aware of the dangers in the civilian population.


----------



## miketx

skews13 said:


> Laws about freedom of speech don’t just shift when it comes to content and context, they’re also constantly updated to address something else: technology. Radio. Movies. Television. The internet. Even comic books. All have sparked changes in what is permitted and how speech is regulated. But somehow, we pretend that guns are different; that words written when the most deadly weapon required a ramrod and black powder mean that we can’t make adjustments for a semi-automatic rifle and a 30-round clip.
> 
> The truth is that guns _are _different. Because the right to bear arms is _a lesser right_. A right that was never intended to exist at all.
> 
> What makes individual gun ownership a lesser right? It’s a right that only exists in the minds of a handful of hard-right Supreme Court justices who happen to be on the court at this moment. Until 2008, no federal court had _ever_ ruled that the Second Amendment included a right to individual gun ownership. It was always understood as it was written: Guns were allowed in individual hands as a means to supply the armed forces.
> 
> Here’s the _Milwaukee Independent_ looking at how Chief Justice Warren Burger discussed the Second Amendment.
> 
> That the Second Amendment exists at all is more an accident of timing than an attempt to put guns in the hands of every American.
> The amendment grew out of a fear that having a standing army would leave the nation open to depredations by an authoritarian leader, or that the nascent democracy would be overthrown by a military junta. To that end, they explicitly inserted the Second Amendment as an alternative means of providing national defense.
> 
> There were multiple drafts of the Second Amendment. Every one of them includes text explaining that this amendment exists only because it’s needed to provide for the nation’s defense.
> Just a year after the Constitution was ratified, George Washington nudged Congress to create an official U.S. military, but the still-fearful Congress limited that force to just few hundred soldiers and officers. It would be another six years before it was allowed to grow significantly. When war came in 1812 two things were immediately obvious: The number of soldiers then in the official U.S. military were far from enough to defend the nation, and the poorly organized civilian militias for which the Second Amendment was created were an absolute failure when it came to national defense.
> 
> In the next year, the professional military of the United States grew by over 300%. “Second Amendment solutions” were on their way out.
> The Second Amendment is failure. It _never _worked for its intended purposes. It was born from  the understandable fears of a new nation engaged in a radical new scheme. But it was a mistake. It may be the most costly mistake this nation has ever made other than failing to end slavery at the outset.
> 
> The right thing to do would be to recognize that mistake and pass a new amendment that simply ends the Second Amendment, just as the 18th Amendment was repealed by the 21st Amendment in 1933. (Take a drink.)
> 
> Instead, we get statements like this piece of profound ignorance. One that is wrong. Wrong. Wrong again. And then … still wrong.
> 
> 
> Recognizing that an actual repeal of the Second Amendment—while absolutely just—isn’t likely, the next best thing is to simply recognize that the right to individual gun ownership is _a lesser right_, one whose appearance in that useless amendment subjects it to practical constraint.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Second Amendment was a failure from the start, and should have been repealed 200 years ago
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as an unconstrained right. Speech has limits. Religion has limits. Assembly has limits. The idea that any of these things can be completely “free” of government oversight is a pipedream, and everyone from the founders to the...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dailykos.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Individual gun ownership rights are the result of a Supreme Court decision. Specifically Heller v DC
> 
> Just like abortion rights are the result of a Supreme Court decision. Specifically Roe v Wade
> 
> The current court is ready to take away Roe v Wade.
> 
> A future court can do the same with Heller v DC.


Come get them.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

Orangecat said:


> You caught yourself when you dropped out of junior high. I’m just laughing at your intellectual impotency.
> Have you noticed that no one, not even your fellow useful idiots, are thanking your dumb posts?
> Telling, that.


Actually, I had noticed, and yes, there is an element of disappointment in not drawing support from those of common mind. However, I don't come here for slaps on the back.  Nor do I hold much pretense that I can open provincial minds.

I write because I find good exercise in it.    

Do you have anything to say about the 2ndA?


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

bripat9643 said:


> Of course it does.  All the government has to do is review the registration records.
> 
> How stupid do yo have to be to believe otherwise?


So, the government reviews your registration, and poof, without cause, your guns are grabbed?  

That would be wrong.  

I don't ignore that power corrupts, that "someone" in government might attempt to violate your rights.  That's why we have courts.  That's why any rational regulation would have to be well defined to include spelling out its limits and means of redress.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Locked and loaded weapon is loaded round chambered and on safe. Prepared to fight. I smell bullshit anyone who has been in combat is aware of the dangers in the civilian population.


I'm sorry, I wasn't asking you to define lock and load.  I was asking you to explain why the US Military manages firearms to a much greater degree than you would have us manage amateurs in crowed public places.  

As for what you smell, I was a 67N20, a Single Turbine, Tandem Rotor, Utility Helicopter Repairmen.  I worked on a Periodical Team (100-hour inspections).  We pulled the ships apart, performed scheduled maintenance, put them back together, and flew test flights.  After making team leader, I got to fly in the Peter Pilot's Seat.  Some of the test pilots would let you have some stick time. That was the fun part except in the case of a 1:1 vertical hop that killed both the Pilot and a tech inspector. 

Anything else you'd like to know about bullshit?


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

Toddsterpatriot said:


> They were "qualifying" it, just before saying "shall not be infringed"?
> 
> You seem confused.


No, it was said together as one sentence in defining the need to bear arms.  Where is that regulated militia?


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

M14 Shooter said:


> *The fact "risk" is not "clear, present, and immediate danger" aside...*
> By "free fire zones" you mean "anywhere that's not a gun-free zone" - and as such, your claim is nonsense
> 
> So, I ask again, in reference to the concept of "clear, present an immediate danger" as applied to the 1st amendment:
> How does this relate to the right to keep and bear arms?
> What, in that context, constitutes falsely placing someone in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger?


If what I bolded is true, why do you feel the need to shoulder an AR15 in a mall?


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

skews13 said:


> Laws about freedom of speech don’t just shift when it comes to content and context, they’re also constantly updated to address something else: technology. Radio. Movies. Television. The internet. Even comic books. All have sparked changes in what is permitted and how speech is regulated. But somehow, we pretend that guns are different; that words written when the most deadly weapon required a ramrod and black powder mean that we can’t make adjustments for a semi-automatic rifle and a 30-round clip.
> 
> The truth is that guns _are _different. Because the right to bear arms is _a lesser right_. A right that was never intended to exist at all.
> 
> What makes individual gun ownership a lesser right? It’s a right that only exists in the minds of a handful of hard-right Supreme Court justices who happen to be on the court at this moment. Until 2008, no federal court had _ever_ ruled that the Second Amendment included a right to individual gun ownership. It was always understood as it was written: Guns were allowed in individual hands as a means to supply the armed forces.
> 
> Here’s the _Milwaukee Independent_ looking at how Chief Justice Warren Burger discussed the Second Amendment.
> 
> That the Second Amendment exists at all is more an accident of timing than an attempt to put guns in the hands of every American.
> The amendment grew out of a fear that having a standing army would leave the nation open to depredations by an authoritarian leader, or that the nascent democracy would be overthrown by a military junta. To that end, they explicitly inserted the Second Amendment as an alternative means of providing national defense.
> 
> There were multiple drafts of the Second Amendment. Every one of them includes text explaining that this amendment exists only because it’s needed to provide for the nation’s defense.
> Just a year after the Constitution was ratified, George Washington nudged Congress to create an official U.S. military, but the still-fearful Congress limited that force to just few hundred soldiers and officers. It would be another six years before it was allowed to grow significantly. When war came in 1812 two things were immediately obvious: The number of soldiers then in the official U.S. military were far from enough to defend the nation, and the poorly organized civilian militias for which the Second Amendment was created were an absolute failure when it came to national defense.
> 
> In the next year, the professional military of the United States grew by over 300%. “Second Amendment solutions” were on their way out.
> The Second Amendment is failure. It _never _worked for its intended purposes. It was born from  the understandable fears of a new nation engaged in a radical new scheme. But it was a mistake. It may be the most costly mistake this nation has ever made other than failing to end slavery at the outset.
> 
> The right thing to do would be to recognize that mistake and pass a new amendment that simply ends the Second Amendment, just as the 18th Amendment was repealed by the 21st Amendment in 1933. (Take a drink.)
> 
> Instead, we get statements like this piece of profound ignorance. One that is wrong. Wrong. Wrong again. And then … still wrong.
> 
> 
> Recognizing that an actual repeal of the Second Amendment—while absolutely just—isn’t likely, the next best thing is to simply recognize that the right to individual gun ownership is _a lesser right_, one whose appearance in that useless amendment subjects it to practical constraint.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Second Amendment was a failure from the start, and should have been repealed 200 years ago
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as an unconstrained right. Speech has limits. Religion has limits. Assembly has limits. The idea that any of these things can be completely “free” of government oversight is a pipedream, and everyone from the founders to the...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dailykos.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Individual gun ownership rights are the result of a Supreme Court decision. Specifically Heller v DC
> 
> Just like abortion rights are the result of a Supreme Court decision. Specifically Roe v Wade
> 
> The current court is ready to take away Roe v Wade.
> 
> A future court can do the same with Heller v DC.


This thread has been all over the place, and I take some responsibility for having engaged some of the nonsense.

I have brought forward the well written original post that makes so many sound points.  I encourage everyone who passes by here, to read that post thoroughly and thoughtfully.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

BLUE COLLAR said:


> No, it was said together as one sentence in defining the need to bear arms.  Where is that regulated militia?



Where did it limit the need to a regulated militia?


----------



## M14 Shooter

BLUE COLLAR said:


> If what I bolded is true...


You're avoiding the questions
Thus,  I ask again, in reference to the concept of "clear, present an immediate danger" as applied to the 1st amendment:
_*How does this relate to the right to keep and bear arms?*_
*What, in that context, constitutes falsely placing someone in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger?        *


----------



## M14 Shooter

BLUE COLLAR said:


> I have brought forward the well written original post that makes so many sound points.  I encourage everyone who passes by here, to read that post thoroughly and thoughtfully.


I did.    You have yet to meaningfully respond to the rebuttal.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

BLUE COLLAR said:


> I'm sorry, I wasn't asking you to define lock and load.  I was asking you to explain why the US Military manages firearms to a much greater degree than you would have us manage amateurs in crowed public places.
> 
> As for what you smell, I was a 67N20, a Single Turbine, Tandem Rotor, Utility Helicopter Repairmen.  I worked on a Periodical Team (100-hour inspections).  We pulled the ships apart, performed scheduled maintenance, put them back together, and flew test flights.  After making team leader, I got to fly in the Peter Pilot's Seat.  Some of the test pilots would let you have some stick time. That was the fun part except in the case of a 1:1 vertical hop that killed both the Pilot and a tech inspector.
> 
> Anything else you'd like to know about bullshit?


You should know better and should always be prepared. Because the military has an armorer 24/7 weapons locked up. As for accountability it has a history of being lacking. Had this staff Sargent who was having trouble with his cheating wife had enough of her shit. One day before guard mount he drew out his assigned weapon for his shift form the armorer which was a m16 with a 203 attached grenade launcher and went looking for his wife. We had to track him down. Found him before he found his wife no shots fired but it could have been bad. And there are those time the military looses rifles that have been stolen. 








						The US military guns most often lost or stolen
					

The following US military guns were among the most commonly missing, lost, stolen -- or, in some cases, among the most remarkable.



					www.tennessean.com


----------



## bripat9643

BLUE COLLAR said:


> So, the government reviews your registration, and poof, without cause, your guns are grabbed?
> 
> That would be wrong.
> 
> I don't ignore that power corrupts, that "someone" in government might attempt to violate your rights.  That's why we have courts.


If a government is going to confiscate firearmns, the first thing it has to know is who has them.  No one claimed it happened by magic.



BLUE COLLAR said:


> That's why any rational regulation would have to be well defined to include spelling out its limits and means of redress.


What do you suppose the chances are of a bunch of sleazy politician doing that are?


----------



## M14 Shooter

Rye Catcher said:


> An argument needs to be posted before a rebuttal.  Your opinion is absurd, read the 2nd closely, and see there is no mention of guns.


So...  the right of the people keep and bear what 'arms" is protected by the 2nd?


----------



## M14 Shooter

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The states should determine how to regulate firearms, not tyrants in black robes legislating from the bench ignoring the will of the people.


The states should determine how to regulate abortions,, not tyrants in black robes legislating from the bench ignoring the will of the people.


----------



## 2aguy

BLUE COLLAR said:


> So, the government reviews your registration, and poof, without cause, your guns are grabbed?
> 
> That would be wrong.
> 
> I don't ignore that power corrupts, that "someone" in government might attempt to violate your rights.  That's why we have courts.  That's why any rational regulation would have to be well defined to include spelling out its limits and means of redress.




Yeah....this.........

*Red flag laws are ripe for abuse. You can tell because the left is slobbering to get them enacted. Do Dems arrest the myriad scumbags wandering the streets of Democrat cities? Do they prosecute them? No, and these animals commit an Uvalde every few days. If Dems cared about “gun crime,” they would arrest, charge, and lock-up gun criminals, but they don’t. They care about thought crimes – yours. These laws might be used to disarm a few nutballs, sure, but they will also be used against us when we dissent too much. We’ve seen how they use the power of government against political opponents like us – IRS targeting, FBI entrapment, selective prosecutions, to name a few – and why the hell would we give them a new weapon when they have abused the ones they already have in the service of the regime?*
*
Oh, but see, there are police and judges who will ensure this is all done fairly and is never, ever, part of some political vendetta. Chet, my unicorn, is totally confident that the ruling caste will start respecting our rights as soon as we grant it this power to summarily take them away.
*
*Why the hell would we ever put our civil rights in the hands of a dual track justice system where our train is always the one getting derailed?*









						No White Flag on Red Flag Laws
					






					townhall.com


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Rye Catcher said:


> An argument needs to be posted before a rebuttal.  Your opinion is absurd, read the 2nd closely, and see there is no mention of guns.  Arms are in the times in Armories, and trained to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
> 
> Read the next clause in Art I, Sec 8, Clause 15.


In the military the weapon is called a rifle a gun is the dick no mention of dicks in the constitution.


----------



## TNHarley

skews13 said:


> Laws about freedom of speech don’t just shift when it comes to content and context, they’re also constantly updated to address something else: technology. Radio. Movies. Television. The internet. Even comic books. All have sparked changes in what is permitted and how speech is regulated. But somehow, we pretend that guns are different; that words written when the most deadly weapon required a ramrod and black powder mean that we can’t make adjustments for a semi-automatic rifle and a 30-round clip.
> 
> The truth is that guns _are _different. Because the right to bear arms is _a lesser right_. A right that was never intended to exist at all.
> 
> What makes individual gun ownership a lesser right? It’s a right that only exists in the minds of a handful of hard-right Supreme Court justices who happen to be on the court at this moment. Until 2008, no federal court had _ever_ ruled that the Second Amendment included a right to individual gun ownership. It was always understood as it was written: Guns were allowed in individual hands as a means to supply the armed forces.
> 
> Here’s the _Milwaukee Independent_ looking at how Chief Justice Warren Burger discussed the Second Amendment.
> 
> That the Second Amendment exists at all is more an accident of timing than an attempt to put guns in the hands of every American.
> The amendment grew out of a fear that having a standing army would leave the nation open to depredations by an authoritarian leader, or that the nascent democracy would be overthrown by a military junta. To that end, they explicitly inserted the Second Amendment as an alternative means of providing national defense.
> 
> There were multiple drafts of the Second Amendment. Every one of them includes text explaining that this amendment exists only because it’s needed to provide for the nation’s defense.
> Just a year after the Constitution was ratified, George Washington nudged Congress to create an official U.S. military, but the still-fearful Congress limited that force to just few hundred soldiers and officers. It would be another six years before it was allowed to grow significantly. When war came in 1812 two things were immediately obvious: The number of soldiers then in the official U.S. military were far from enough to defend the nation, and the poorly organized civilian militias for which the Second Amendment was created were an absolute failure when it came to national defense.
> 
> In the next year, the professional military of the United States grew by over 300%. “Second Amendment solutions” were on their way out.
> The Second Amendment is failure. It _never _worked for its intended purposes. It was born from  the understandable fears of a new nation engaged in a radical new scheme. But it was a mistake. It may be the most costly mistake this nation has ever made other than failing to end slavery at the outset.
> 
> The right thing to do would be to recognize that mistake and pass a new amendment that simply ends the Second Amendment, just as the 18th Amendment was repealed by the 21st Amendment in 1933. (Take a drink.)
> 
> Instead, we get statements like this piece of profound ignorance. One that is wrong. Wrong. Wrong again. And then … still wrong.
> 
> 
> Recognizing that an actual repeal of the Second Amendment—while absolutely just—isn’t likely, the next best thing is to simply recognize that the right to individual gun ownership is _a lesser right_, one whose appearance in that useless amendment subjects it to practical constraint.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Second Amendment was a failure from the start, and should have been repealed 200 years ago
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as an unconstrained right. Speech has limits. Religion has limits. Assembly has limits. The idea that any of these things can be completely “free” of government oversight is a pipedream, and everyone from the founders to the...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dailykos.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Individual gun ownership rights are the result of a Supreme Court decision. Specifically Heller v DC
> 
> Just like abortion rights are the result of a Supreme Court decision. Specifically Roe v Wade
> 
> The current court is ready to take away Roe v Wade.
> 
> A future court can do the same with Heller v DC.


Good thing we have the federalist papers so we know you are a liar.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The states should determine how to regulate firearms, not tyrants in black robes legislating from the bench ignoring the will of the people.


Oh clueless one the second amendment is a federally protected right not subject to state jurisdiction because the 10th amendment says so. Do states regulate the first amendment? How about the 16th amendment?how about the 21 amendment


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Where did it limit the need to a regulated militia?


I'm not sure I'd define it quite that way.  More precisely, the prefatory clause states the purpose of the amendment: the need of a well-regulated militia.  I would not construe that to mean that you do not have an individual right to possess arms - but I don't believe that said right is immune from reasonable regulation.

My turn to ask a question.  If the 2ndA was meant as you believe, why didn't the founding fathers simply write it that way? They could have simply written: The right to bear arms being a natural right, the right of each individual to bear arms shall not be abridged.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

2aguy said:


> Yeah....this.........
> 
> *Red flag laws are ripe for abuse. You can tell because the left is slobbering to get them enacted. Do Dems arrest the myriad scumbags wandering the streets of Democrat cities? Do they prosecute them? No, and these animals commit an Uvalde every few days. If Dems cared about “gun crime,” they would arrest, charge, and lock-up gun criminals, but they don’t. They care about thought crimes – yours. These laws might be used to disarm a few nutballs, sure, but they will also be used against us when we dissent too much. We’ve seen how they use the power of government against political opponents like us – IRS targeting, FBI entrapment, selective prosecutions, to name a few – and why the hell would we give them a new weapon when they have abused the ones they already have in the service of the regime?*
> 
> *Oh, but see, there are police and judges who will ensure this is all done fairly and is never, ever, part of some political vendetta. Chet, my unicorn, is totally confident that the ruling caste will start respecting our rights as soon as we grant it this power to summarily take them away.*
> 
> *Why the hell would we ever put our civil rights in the hands of a dual track justice system where our train is always the one getting derailed?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No White Flag on Red Flag Laws
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> townhall.com


By your logic, we should operate without any law because they cannot be enforced.  That's ridiculous.   

We incarcerate people at a greater rate then any other country in the world.  Who is in all those cells?  You seem to be suggesting that it's people like you.  After all, the Dems are always in charge, and they aren't arresting real criminals?  Ther 


			https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2019-05-13/10-countries-with-the-highest-incarceration-rates


----------



## bripat9643

BLUE COLLAR said:


> I'm not sure I'd define it quite that way.  More precisely, the prefatory clause states the purpose of the amendment: the need of a well-regulated militia.  I would not construe that to mean that you do not have an individual right to possess arms - but I don't believe that said right is immune from reasonable regulation.


Of course, you have no ratoinal basis for not beliving the 2nd Amendment is immune from regulation.  what part of "shall not be abridged" gives the government the right to regulate arms?



BLUE COLLAR said:


> My turn to ask a question.  If the 2ndA was meant as you believe, why didn't the founding fathers simply write it that way? They could have simply written: The right to bear arms being a natural right, the right of each individual to bear arms shall not be abridged.



Yes, they could have and should have.  the just confused the issue with that clause.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

BLUE COLLAR said:


> I'm not sure I'd define it quite that way.  More precisely, the prefatory clause states the purpose of the amendment: the need of a well-regulated militia.  I would not construe that to mean that you do not have an individual right to possess arms - but I don't believe that said right is immune from reasonable regulation.
> 
> My turn to ask a question.  If the 2ndA was meant as you believe, why didn't the founding fathers simply write it that way? They could have simply written: The right to bear arms being a natural right, the right of each individual to bear arms shall not be abridged.



Right. We need a militia......shall not be infringed.

* They could have simply written: The right to bear arms being a natural right, the right of each individual to bear arms shall not be abridged.*

They had just defeated the most powerful empire in the world. 
They wanted to remind everyone that they did it with militias......and shall not be infringed.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

M14 Shooter said:


> I did.    You have yet to meaningfully respond to the rebuttal.


Did you meaningfully reply?  Quit playing games.  It's boring.

You have yet to address why the founding fathers didn't simply forego the prefatory clause and simply state your individual right to bear arms without regulation or limit.  Were they incapable of writing a simple sentence?


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

bripat9643 said:


> Of course, you have no ratoinal basis for not beliving the 2nd Amendment is immune from regulation.  what part of "shall not be abridged" gives the government the right to regulate arms?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, they could have and should have.  the just confused the issue with that clause.


The part that states the purpose is a well-regulated militia.  Kindly define well-regulate.

So now part of your reasoning is that the well-educated founding fathers were confused.  Get serious.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Right. We need a militia......shall not be infringed.
> 
> * They could have simply written: The right to bear arms being a natural right, the right of each individual to bear arms shall not be abridged.*
> 
> They had just defeated the most powerful empire in the world.
> They wanted to remind everyone that they did it with militias......and shall not be infringed.


You are getting closer but appear not to yet appreciate "well-regulated".

Btw, where is that militia?  What's the chain of command, to who do you report?


----------



## flan327

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Right. We need a militia......shall not be infringed.
> 
> * They could have simply written: The right to bear arms being a natural right, the right of each individual to bear arms shall not be abridged.*
> 
> They had just defeated the most powerful empire in the world.
> They wanted to remind everyone that they did it with militias......and shall not be infringed.


Yes

But it’s now 2022


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

BLUE COLLAR said:


> You are getting closer but appear not to yet appreciate "well-regulated".
> 
> Btw, where is that militia?  What's the chain of command, to who do you report?



Well regulated militias (well supplied, in running order) are cool,
so the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Doesn't limit the people's right to the militia. Or when militias are needed.
Or if militias are needed. The right doesn't go away if the militias do.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

flan327 said:


> Yes
> 
> But it’s now 2022



It's 2022, why do we need freedom of speech or freedom of religion?


----------



## flan327

Toddsterpatriot said:


> It's 2022, why do we need freedom of speech or freedom of religion?


Gosh you are stupid


----------



## Unkotare

flan327 said:


> Gosh you are stupid


You didn't answer the question.


----------



## M14 Shooter

BLUE COLLAR said:


> By your logic, we should operate without any law because they cannot be enforced.  That's ridiculous.


Its also a willful characterization of the position.


----------



## M14 Shooter

BLUE COLLAR said:


> Did you meaningfully reply?


Quit playing games.  It's boring.


BLUE COLLAR said:


> You have yet to address why the founding fathers didn't simply forego the prefatory clause...


I have,  You have yet to address the posts that do so,
Because you know you cannot.


----------



## flan327

Unkotare said:


> You didn't answer the question.


I answer questions from ADULTS 

NOT TROLLS


----------



## bripat9643

BLUE COLLAR said:


> The part that states the purpose is a well-regulated militia.  Kindly define well-regulate.


"Well regulated" means well trained and well drilled.  it does not mean government making rules for what kind of arms you can own.



BLUE COLLAR said:


> So now part of your reasoning is that the well-educated founding fathers were confused.  Get serious.



They weren't confused, but that's how democracies operate.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

flan327 said:


> I answer questions from ADULTS
> 
> NOT TROLLS



Ok Robin.


----------



## flan327

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Ok Robin.


I’ve always been flan

Dipwad


----------



## badbob85037

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Prior to 2010 the Second Amendment applied only to the Federal government, not the states and local jurisdictions, who were at liberty to regulate firearms as they saw fit.
> 
> The mistake was to incorporate the Second Amendment to the states, contrary to the original intent of the Framers.


Maybe you should read the writings of our founders on the Second Amendment. BECAUSE RIGHT NOW YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT!


----------



## Unkotare

flan327 said:


> I answer questions from ADULTS
> 
> NOT TROLLS


= DODGE


----------



## Cellblock2429

skews13 said:


> Laws about freedom of speech don’t just shift when it comes to content and context, they’re also constantly updated to address something else: technology. Radio. Movies. Television. The internet. Even comic books. All have sparked changes in what is permitted and how speech is regulated. But somehow, we pretend that guns are different; that words written when the most deadly weapon required a ramrod and black powder mean that we can’t make adjustments for a semi-automatic rifle and a 30-round clip.
> 
> The truth is that guns _are _different. Because the right to bear arms is _a lesser right_. A right that was never intended to exist at all.
> 
> What makes individual gun ownership a lesser right? It’s a right that only exists in the minds of a handful of hard-right Supreme Court justices who happen to be on the court at this moment. Until 2008, no federal court had _ever_ ruled that the Second Amendment included a right to individual gun ownership. It was always understood as it was written: Guns were allowed in individual hands as a means to supply the armed forces.
> 
> Here’s the _Milwaukee Independent_ looking at how Chief Justice Warren Burger discussed the Second Amendment.
> 
> That the Second Amendment exists at all is more an accident of timing than an attempt to put guns in the hands of every American.
> The amendment grew out of a fear that having a standing army would leave the nation open to depredations by an authoritarian leader, or that the nascent democracy would be overthrown by a military junta. To that end, they explicitly inserted the Second Amendment as an alternative means of providing national defense.
> 
> There were multiple drafts of the Second Amendment. Every one of them includes text explaining that this amendment exists only because it’s needed to provide for the nation’s defense.
> Just a year after the Constitution was ratified, George Washington nudged Congress to create an official U.S. military, but the still-fearful Congress limited that force to just few hundred soldiers and officers. It would be another six years before it was allowed to grow significantly. When war came in 1812 two things were immediately obvious: The number of soldiers then in the official U.S. military were far from enough to defend the nation, and the poorly organized civilian militias for which the Second Amendment was created were an absolute failure when it came to national defense.
> 
> In the next year, the professional military of the United States grew by over 300%. “Second Amendment solutions” were on their way out.
> The Second Amendment is failure. It _never _worked for its intended purposes. It was born from  the understandable fears of a new nation engaged in a radical new scheme. But it was a mistake. It may be the most costly mistake this nation has ever made other than failing to end slavery at the outset.
> 
> The right thing to do would be to recognize that mistake and pass a new amendment that simply ends the Second Amendment, just as the 18th Amendment was repealed by the 21st Amendment in 1933. (Take a drink.)
> 
> Instead, we get statements like this piece of profound ignorance. One that is wrong. Wrong. Wrong again. And then … still wrong.
> 
> 
> Recognizing that an actual repeal of the Second Amendment—while absolutely just—isn’t likely, the next best thing is to simply recognize that the right to individual gun ownership is _a lesser right_, one whose appearance in that useless amendment subjects it to practical constraint.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Second Amendment was a failure from the start, and should have been repealed 200 years ago
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as an unconstrained right. Speech has limits. Religion has limits. Assembly has limits. The idea that any of these things can be completely “free” of government oversight is a pipedream, and everyone from the founders to the...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dailykos.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Individual gun ownership rights are the result of a Supreme Court decision. Specifically Heller v DC
> 
> Just like abortion rights are the result of a Supreme Court decision. Specifically Roe v Wade
> 
> The current court is ready to take away Roe v Wade.
> 
> A future court can do the same with Heller v DC.


/———/ WOWZA Who wound this gun grabber up.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

flan327 said:


> I’ve always been flan
> 
> Dipwad



You'll always be Robin to me.


----------



## 2aguy

BLUE COLLAR said:


> I'm not sure I'd define it quite that way.  More precisely, the prefatory clause states the purpose of the amendment: the need of a well-regulated militia.  I would not construe that to mean that you do not have an individual right to possess arms - but I don't believe that said right is immune from reasonable regulation.
> 
> My turn to ask a question.  If the 2ndA was meant as you believe, why didn't the founding fathers simply write it that way? They could have simply written: The right to bear arms being a natural right, the right of each individual to bear arms shall not be abridged.



We have all the regulations we need to stop, arrest and lock up criminals…the problem?  Democrat prosecutors and judges let them out…


----------



## badbob85037

Sunsettommy said:


> You need to read up on the Militia Clause because it refers to the people as clearly pointed out in this link:
> 
> 
> The Heritage Foundation
> Militia Clause​
> Excerpt:
> 
> ARTICLE I, SECTION 8, CLAUSE 15
> 
> The Congress shall have Power To ...provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions....
> 
> For the Founders, the militia arose from the posse comitatus, constituting the people as a whole and embodying the Anglo-American idea that the citizenry is the best enforcer of the law. “A militia when properly formed,” wrote Richard Henry Lee in his _Letters From the Federal Farmer _(1787–1788), “are in fact the people themselves . . . and include all men capable of bearing arms.”
> 
> LINK


Since this clown will never use the link you gave maybe he should be told what he will be facing if he fails to respond to that law. Bozo will be tried in a military court for desertion and during a time of war he and other clowns will make wall  ornaments. Not only are you required to show up but with a modern military weapon with the rounds to power it. California with their lawless laws would make the state a far cry of America. We all see the big nothing their laws have done. Case in point: A few years ago their terminator governor hit the airways on a new gun law that was latter the Supreme Court found unconstitutional saying what they always say about a new gun law  ' it will stop crime'. As he spoke thousands of felons were being released from California prisons due to over crowding. It's called madness.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

2aguy said:


> We have all the regulations we need to stop, arrest and lock up criminals…the problem?  Democrat prosecutors and judges let them out…


Cute, but where is the militia, and what are its regulations?

We have the highest incarceration rate in the world.  So, I doubt your claim that the problem is a failure to keep criminals in jail.  And if it's more jails that we need, how much are you willing to raise taxes to pay for them?


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

M14 Shooter said:


> You're avoiding the questions
> Thus,  I ask again, in reference to the concept of "clear, present an immediate danger" as applied to the 1st amendment:
> _*How does this relate to the right to keep and bear arms?*_
> *What, in that context, constitutes falsely placing someone in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger?      *


No needless offense but are these trick questions because I'm having a difficult time understanding where you are going. Perhaps you need to re-form what it is that you want.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

M14 Shooter said:


> I did.    You have yet to meaningfully respond to the rebuttal.


Good grief, what rebuttal?


----------



## woodwork201

skews13 said:


> Laws about freedom of speech don’t just shift when it comes to content and context, they’re also constantly updated to address something else: technology. Radio. Movies. Television. The internet. Even comic books. All have sparked changes in what is permitted and how speech is regulated. But somehow, we pretend that guns are different; that words written when the most deadly weapon required a ramrod and black powder mean that we can’t make adjustments for a semi-automatic rifle and a 30-round clip.
> 
> The truth is that guns _are _different. Because the right to bear arms is _a lesser right_. A right that was never intended to exist at all.
> 
> What makes individual gun ownership a lesser right? It’s a right that only exists in the minds of a handful of hard-right Supreme Court justices who happen to be on the court at this moment. Until 2008, no federal court had _ever_ ruled that the Second Amendment included a right to individual gun ownership. It was always understood as it was written: Guns were allowed in individual hands as a means to supply the armed forces.
> 
> Here’s the _Milwaukee Independent_ looking at how Chief Justice Warren Burger discussed the Second Amendment.
> 
> That the Second Amendment exists at all is more an accident of timing than an attempt to put guns in the hands of every American.
> The amendment grew out of a fear that having a standing army would leave the nation open to depredations by an authoritarian leader, or that the nascent democracy would be overthrown by a military junta. To that end, they explicitly inserted the Second Amendment as an alternative means of providing national defense.
> 
> There were multiple drafts of the Second Amendment. Every one of them includes text explaining that this amendment exists only because it’s needed to provide for the nation’s defense.
> Just a year after the Constitution was ratified, George Washington nudged Congress to create an official U.S. military, but the still-fearful Congress limited that force to just few hundred soldiers and officers. It would be another six years before it was allowed to grow significantly. When war came in 1812 two things were immediately obvious: The number of soldiers then in the official U.S. military were far from enough to defend the nation, and the poorly organized civilian militias for which the Second Amendment was created were an absolute failure when it came to national defense.
> 
> In the next year, the professional military of the United States grew by over 300%. “Second Amendment solutions” were on their way out.
> The Second Amendment is failure. It _never _worked for its intended purposes. It was born from  the understandable fears of a new nation engaged in a radical new scheme. But it was a mistake. It may be the most costly mistake this nation has ever made other than failing to end slavery at the outset.
> 
> The right thing to do would be to recognize that mistake and pass a new amendment that simply ends the Second Amendment, just as the 18th Amendment was repealed by the 21st Amendment in 1933. (Take a drink.)
> 
> Instead, we get statements like this piece of profound ignorance. One that is wrong. Wrong. Wrong again. And then … still wrong.
> 
> 
> Recognizing that an actual repeal of the Second Amendment—while absolutely just—isn’t likely, the next best thing is to simply recognize that the right to individual gun ownership is _a lesser right_, one whose appearance in that useless amendment subjects it to practical constraint.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Second Amendment was a failure from the start, and should have been repealed 200 years ago
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as an unconstrained right. Speech has limits. Religion has limits. Assembly has limits. The idea that any of these things can be completely “free” of government oversight is a pipedream, and everyone from the founders to the...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dailykos.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Individual gun ownership rights are the result of a Supreme Court decision. Specifically Heller v DC
> 
> Just like abortion rights are the result of a Supreme Court decision. Specifically Roe v Wade
> 
> The current court is ready to take away Roe v Wade.
> 
> A future court can do the same with Heller v DC.



Name a law that changed freedom of speech - I doubt you can but if you can I'll defend your right to say stupid shit as loudly as I defend the right to keep and bear arms.


----------



## Orangecat

BLUE COLLAR said:


> Do you have anything to say about the 2ndA?


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Well regulated militias (well supplied, in running order) are cool,
> so the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Doesn't limit the people's right to the militia. Or when militias are needed.
> Or if militias are needed. The right doesn't go away if the militias do.


I'm pretty sure the militia is suppose to be well-regulated (organized) at all times - even when not in immediate need.  If it's not prepared to quickly assemble and act, it's a nothing-burger.  Where are the regulations that organize it?


----------



## badbob85037

skews13 said:


> Laws about freedom of speech don’t just shift when it comes to content and context, they’re also constantly updated to address something else: technology. Radio. Movies. Television. The internet. Even comic books. All have sparked changes in what is permitted and how speech is regulated. But somehow, we pretend that guns are different; that words written when the most deadly weapon required a ramrod and black powder mean that we can’t make adjustments for a semi-automatic rifle and a 30-round clip.
> 
> The truth is that guns _are _different. Because the right to bear arms is _a lesser right_. A right that was never intended to exist at all.
> 
> What makes individual gun ownership a lesser right? It’s a right that only exists in the minds of a handful of hard-right Supreme Court justices who happen to be on the court at this moment. Until 2008, no federal court had _ever_ ruled that the Second Amendment included a right to individual gun ownership. It was always understood as it was written: Guns were allowed in individual hands as a means to supply the armed forces.
> 
> Here’s the _Milwaukee Independent_ looking at how Chief Justice Warren Burger discussed the Second Amendment.
> 
> That the Second Amendment exists at all is more an accident of timing than an attempt to put guns in the hands of every American.
> The amendment grew out of a fear that having a standing army would leave the nation open to depredations by an authoritarian leader, or that the nascent democracy would be overthrown by a military junta. To that end, they explicitly inserted the Second Amendment as an alternative means of providing national defense.
> 
> There were multiple drafts of the Second Amendment. Every one of them includes text explaining that this amendment exists only because it’s needed to provide for the nation’s defense.
> Just a year after the Constitution was ratified, George Washington nudged Congress to create an official U.S. military, but the still-fearful Congress limited that force to just few hundred soldiers and officers. It would be another six years before it was allowed to grow significantly. When war came in 1812 two things were immediately obvious: The number of soldiers then in the official U.S. military were far from enough to defend the nation, and the poorly organized civilian militias for which the Second Amendment was created were an absolute failure when it came to national defense.
> 
> In the next year, the professional military of the United States grew by over 300%. “Second Amendment solutions” were on their way out.
> The Second Amendment is failure. It _never _worked for its intended purposes. It was born from  the understandable fears of a new nation engaged in a radical new scheme. But it was a mistake. It may be the most costly mistake this nation has ever made other than failing to end slavery at the outset.
> 
> The right thing to do would be to recognize that mistake and pass a new amendment that simply ends the Second Amendment, just as the 18th Amendment was repealed by the 21st Amendment in 1933. (Take a drink.)
> 
> Instead, we get statements like this piece of profound ignorance. One that is wrong. Wrong. Wrong again. And then … still wrong.
> 
> 
> Recognizing that an actual repeal of the Second Amendment—while absolutely just—isn’t likely, the next best thing is to simply recognize that the right to individual gun ownership is _a lesser right_, one whose appearance in that useless amendment subjects it to practical constraint.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Second Amendment was a failure from the start, and should have been repealed 200 years ago
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as an unconstrained right. Speech has limits. Religion has limits. Assembly has limits. The idea that any of these things can be completely “free” of government oversight is a pipedream, and everyone from the founders to the...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dailykos.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Individual gun ownership rights are the result of a Supreme Court decision. Specifically Heller v DC
> 
> Just like abortion rights are the result of a Supreme Court decision. Specifically Roe v Wade
> 
> The current court is ready to take away Roe v Wade.
> 
> A future court can do the same with Heller v DC.


skews13 if that is your real name here's a suggestion. You should take the warped idea of the Constitution you hold, fold it in a square with sharp corners and shove it up your ass. You should move to London whose murder rate were the same as New York last year, hide under a bed, and pray you are not stabbed. America don't need freaks like you and never has.  As far as America goes you have never served in the armed forces and only take from the nation. America would be better off if you just moved some where where cowards are celebrated and live out your worthless life in fear.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

Orangecat said:


>


Ah, so a well-regulated militia is an unofficial army?

Do you guys have an unofficial Navy or Airforce?  Wait, I guess you don't need them because you probably don't have any ships or planes.   Btw, who's in charge of logistics or do plan to pack a sack lunch and take a taxi to the front lines?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

bigrebnc1775


----------



## badbob85037

BlackSand said:


> .
> 
> ... And that would be a crime and there is a Federal Statute that addresses that.
> It's already forbidden by law.
> 
> .​


I wish I had as much patents as you to answer these total moron idiots who some how can spell.


----------



## badbob85037

BLUE COLLAR said:


> Ah, so a well-regulated militia is an unofficial army?
> 
> Do you guys have an unofficial Navy or Airforce?  Wait, I guess you don't need them because you probably don't have any ships or planes.   Btw, who's in charge of logistics or do plan to pack a sack lunch and take a taxi to the front lines?


You are just another cowardly idiot and yes I do have a plane. Before you post next time try reading a little about what you know nothing about.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

BLUE COLLAR said:


> Ah, so a well-regulated militia is an unofficial army?
> 
> Do you guys have an unofficial Navy or Airforce?  Wait, I guess you don't need them because you probably don't have any ships or planes.   Btw, who's in charge of logistics or do plan to pack a sack lunch and take a taxi to the front lines?


You have no concept


----------



## BlackSand

BLUE COLLAR said:


> I'm pretty sure the militia is suppose to be well-regulated (organized) at all times - even when not in immediate need.  If it's not prepared to quickly assemble and act, it's a nothing-burger.  Where are the regulations that organize it?


.

The Constitution in no way forbids any State or Local authority from passing legislation that forms, arms and regulates a militia.
Any absence of such a law in no way grants the Federal Government the power to infringe upon the Rights of the People.

.​


----------



## Orangecat

BLUE COLLAR said:


> Ah, so a well-regulated militia is an unofficial army?


No one said that. Why go the straw man route unless you're intellect is faltering?


> Do you guys have an unofficial Navy or Airforce?  Wait, I guess you don't need them because you probably don't have any ships or planes.   Btw, who's in charge of logistics or do plan to pack a sack lunch and take a taxi to the front lines?


You're just babbling now because you can't effectively counter a meme. You've been jousting this windmill for days now. Give it a rest, bozo.


----------



## flan327

Toddsterpatriot said:


> You'll always be Robin to me.


You’ll always be ONE HUNDRED PERCENT WRONG

I feel sorry for you


----------



## flan327

2aguy said:


> We have all the regulations we need to stop, arrest and lock up criminals…the problem?  Democrat prosecutors and judges let them out…


JAILS ARE FULL


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

badbob85037 said:


> You are just another cowardly idiot and yes I do have a plane. Before you post next time try reading a little about what you know nothing about.


With what armament systems is your plane equipped, and how many such planes do you have?  What about naval ships, tanks, Howitzers, etc.-etc.?  The contention that an army of amateur potbellies (equipped principally with nothing but small arms) could match a well, equipped, well trained and managed military force is moronic.  But good, luck.  Muster your row boats and invade China.

Why don't you call me another name?  Perhaps that will win the day.  What a mother-fucking joke!


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

bigrebnc1775 said:


> You have no concept


Concept of what?  Why do you even bother with empty comments like the above?


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *You ask for examples, I gave some.*
> 
> I asked for examples of rights given by the Constitution.
> 
> *It isn't an issue of whether you imposed your religion.  Did Christians at one time impose their prayers in public schools?*
> 
> Did they? Do they today?
> 
> *"Offends and upsets" was an introduction,*
> 
> Yes. My right to bear arms can be reduced by your "upset".
> Can my right to free speech be reduced by your upset?
> And my freedom of religion?
> 
> What about double jeopardy?
> 
> * the meat of the argument was with not appreciating free fire zones managed by unregulated militias of unknown qualifications and motivations. *
> 
> Now my rights depend on qualifications you want to impose on me?


If you live amongst other people, particularly in a densely populated world, one that qualifies as civilization, all rights come with responsibilities.  I have rights too, starting with the pursuit of happiness. Rambo at the mall, and un-regulated militias, interfere with my pursuit.  

Common sense dictates that you have a right to protect yourself.  My right to protect myself includes making sure you don't abuse your rights.  What is so difficult about that to appreciate?  

Yes, there are assholes (on both sides of the aisle) who will always attempt to abuse the rule of law.  We saw that on Jan 6 when an army of losers assaulted our Capitol (yours and mine).  They did so on the merit of Trump shooting of his mouth about voter fraud while losing 62 court filings on the matter, on merit that a group of nobodies could simply declare themselves the electorate and have one man, the VP, select a new POTUS.  WTF?


----------



## BlackSand

BLUE COLLAR said:


> Rambo at the mall, and un-regulated militias, interfere with my pursuit.


.

All of the things listed above are already against the law and covered by Federal Statute.
So ... Your Society and Civilization in general are already protecting you and your Rights.

.​


----------



## BlackSand

BLUE COLLAR said:


> My right to protect myself includes making sure you don't abuse your rights.


.

Exercising one's Rights is not abusing one's Rights.
Breaking the law is illegal and already against the law.

.​


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

Orangecat said:


> No one said that. Why go the straw man route unless you're intellect is faltering?
> 
> You're just babbling now because you can't effectively counter a meme. You've been jousting this windmill for days now. Give it a rest, bozo.


The cartoon that you pasted labeled you, and the other 99,999,999 gun owners, an unofficial army.  Get your head out of your ass.

Give it a rest?  Are you trying to interfere with my 1stA Rights?  Whoa, I thought ignorant, reactionary assholism died in a bunker with Hitler.


----------



## M14 Shooter

BLUE COLLAR said:


> No needless offense but are these trick questions because...


...  you know you cannot honestly address them w/o overturning your arguments.
Which is, of course, why I asked them.

Thus,  I ask again, in reference to the concept of "clear, present an immediate danger" as applied to the 1st amendment:
_*How does this relate to the right to keep and bear arms?*_
*What, in that context, constitutes falsely placing someone in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger?      *


----------



## M14 Shooter

BLUE COLLAR said:


> Good grief, what rebuttal?


Look at you, lying to yourself.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

BlackSand said:


> .
> 
> All of the things listed above are already against the law and covered by Federal Statute.
> So ... Your Society and Civilization in general are already protecting you and your Rights.
> 
> .​


It's also against the law to unlawfully seize personal property, including guns.  Reasonable militia regulations will not change that.  So, what's your fucking problem with keeping guns out of the wrong hands?


----------



## Orangecat

BLUE COLLAR said:


> The cartoon that you pasted labeled you, and the other 99,999,999 gun owners, an unofficial army.


It was a meme, dumbass, not a cartoon.


> Get your head out of your ass.


Lol. Such a child.


> Give it a rest?


Yes, you've been making a fool of yourself for days here.


> Are you trying to interfere with my 1stA Rights?


Quite the opposite, actually. You're just too stupid to comprehend your own position, dope.


> Whoa, I thought ignorant, reactionary assholism died in a bunker with Hitler.


You being here proves that theory incorrect.


----------



## Orangecat

BLUE COLLAR said:


> I have rights too, starting with the pursuit of happiness. Rambo at the mall, and un-regulated militias, interfere with my pursuit.


How does your paranoid hyperbole of "Rambo in the mall" interfere with your pursuit of happiness, dope?
Is your happiness attained by dictating what other people are allowed to do? GFY.


----------



## BlackSand

BLUE COLLAR said:


> Reasonable militia regulations will not change that.


.

Reasonable Militia Regulations refer to legitimate, legal militias legislated, formed, armed and regulated by the State or Local authorities.

The Peoples' Right to Bear Arms is in no way restricted to a militia and wouldn't even have been mentioned if it was.
The Militia doesn't need to be granted the uninfringed Right to Bear Arms ... Because you couldn't have a militia without arms.

.​


----------



## flan327

BLUE COLLAR said:


> Concept of what?  Why do you even bother with empty comments like the above?


Yet you responded


----------



## flan327

Orangecat said:


> How does your paranoid hyperbole of "Rambo in the mall" interfere with your pursuit of happiness, dope?
> Is your happiness attained by dictating what other people are allowed to do? GFY.


Klassy as usual


----------



## Orangecat

flan327 said:


> Klassy as usual


Illiterate, as usual.


----------



## Unkotare

Hard to believe this troll thread is still going.


----------



## BlackSand

Unkotare said:


> Hard to believe this troll thread is still going.


.

Thanks for your contributions to it ...   

.​


----------



## M14 Shooter

Orangecat said:


> How does your paranoid hyperbole of "Rambo in the mall" interfere with your pursuit of happiness, dope?


This is an irrational fear.
This, the hindrance he claims is self-generated.


----------



## Orangecat

M14 Shooter said:


> This is an irrational fear.
> This, the hindrance he claims is self-generated.


He really is just a simple minded dictator-wannabe. Ultimately harmless, but fun to kick around here for a few days.


----------



## woodwork201

BLUE COLLAR said:


> I'm pretty sure the militia is suppose to be well-regulated (organized) at all times - even when not in immediate need.  If it's not prepared to quickly assemble and act, it's a nothing-burger.  Where are the regulations that organize it?


I've read the Constitution probably 250 times or more and never noticed the "at all times" clause.  Luckily we live in a digital age where you can even do an electronic search for terms or phrases that the brain and the eyes just plain ignore when reading; it can happen to all of  us.  So I opened the plain text versions of the Constitution, the Federalist papers, the anti-Federalist papers, the notes from the Continental Congress and just every document I could find.  There must be something missing in my downloaded copies because I never found the phrase "at all times" in any context related top the militia or the right to keep and bear arms.  Perhaps you could share your copies where you found such a requirement.


----------



## M14 Shooter

BLUE COLLAR said:


> I'm pretty sure the militia is suppose to be well-regulated (organized) at all times -


What makes you sure of this - especially the "at all times" part?
Who decides if the militia is sufficiently regulated?
What effect does any of this have on my right to keep and bear arms?


----------



## woodwork201

BLUE COLLAR said:


> If you live amongst other people, particularly in a densely populated world, one that qualifies as civilization, all rights come with responsibilities.  I have rights too, starting with the pursuit of happiness. Rambo at the mall, and un-regulated militias, interfere with my pursuit.
> 
> Common sense dictates that you have a right to protect yourself.  My right to protect myself includes making sure you don't abuse your rights.  What is so difficult about that to appreciate?
> 
> Yes, there are assholes (on both sides of the aisle) who will always attempt to abuse the rule of law.  We saw that on Jan 6 when an army of losers assaulted our Capitol (yours and mine).  They did so on the merit of Trump shooting of his mouth about voter fraud while losing 62 court filings on the matter, on merit that a group of nobodies could simply declare themselves the electorate and have one man, the VP, select a new POTUS.  WTF?



You're right that my right to keep and bear arms doesn't include the right to intentionally point it at you and shoot you - except in self-defense of myself or others, and in some states of my property.  Your rights are secure even when I carry a gun.


----------



## 2aguy

flan327 said:


> JAILS ARE FULL




No......the most violent, and dangerous criminals are being released over and over again by the democrat party.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

flan327 said:


> You’ll always be ONE HUNDRED PERCENT WRONG
> 
> I feel sorry for you



Cool story.......while you're running away.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

BLUE COLLAR said:


> If you live amongst other people, particularly in a densely populated world, one that qualifies as civilization, all rights come with responsibilities.  I have rights too, starting with the pursuit of happiness. Rambo at the mall, and un-regulated militias, interfere with my pursuit.
> 
> Common sense dictates that you have a right to protect yourself.  My right to protect myself includes making sure you don't abuse your rights.  What is so difficult about that to appreciate?
> 
> Yes, there are assholes (on both sides of the aisle) who will always attempt to abuse the rule of law.  We saw that on Jan 6 when an army of losers assaulted our Capitol (yours and mine).  They did so on the merit of Trump shooting of his mouth about voter fraud while losing 62 court filings on the matter, on merit that a group of nobodies could simply declare themselves the electorate and have one man, the VP, select a new POTUS.  WTF?



*I have rights too, starting with the pursuit of happiness. Rambo at the mall, and un-regulated militias, interfere with my pursuit.*

I know. My freedom of religion and my freedom of speech may also interfere with your pursuit.
It's a conundrum.

*Common sense dictates that you have a right to protect yourself.  My right to protect myself includes making sure you don't abuse your rights.  What is so difficult about that to appreciate? *

I appreciate that. 

My right to protect myself also includes making sure you don't abuse my rights.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

woodwork201 said:


> You're right that my right to keep and bear arms doesn't include the right to intentionally point it at you and shoot you - except in self-defense of myself or others, and in some states of my property.  Your rights are secure even when I carry a gun.


Well, we agree on a piece of it, and that's good.  I could challenge part of what you wrote, but not wanting to smear that, I'll simply suggest that given effort we might find additional common ground.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *I have rights too, starting with the pursuit of happiness. Rambo at the mall, and un-regulated militias, interfere with my pursuit.*
> 
> I know. My freedom of religion and my freedom of speech may also interfere with your pursuit.
> It's a conundrum.
> 
> *Common sense dictates that you have a right to protect yourself.  My right to protect myself includes making sure you don't abuse your rights.  What is so difficult about that to appreciate? *
> 
> I appreciate that.
> 
> My right to protect myself also includes making sure you don't abuse my rights.


I can live with that.  The devil will still be in the details - but at least we've recognized that there are legitimate points on both sides.  Sincerely, it is refreshing to discuss our differences on a civilized level.   Thank you.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

M14 Shooter said:


> What makes you sure of this - especially the "at all times" part?
> Who decides if the militia is sufficiently regulated?
> What effect does any of this have on my right to keep and bear arms?


As to the first question, what is the point of having something unless it's in a proper state of repair? That said, I would agree that a "militia" is a bit of a relic - given the National Guard and our Standing Military.  Your right to protect yourself and bear arms should not be dependent upon participation in something that does not exist.  It also should not be dependent upon the grammatically incorrect decision as argued by Scalia.  You should trust that Heller is a temporary accommodation.

Your rights should be protected by the rule of law, defined and administered in an even-handed manner.  At the same time there needs to be a reasonable effort to reduce the abuse of firearms.  

As to the second question, we the people decide, and it serves all of us to recognize that compromise will be necessary from both sides.  Why? Because life in the big city is complicated?  I'll lean on Ralph Waldo Emerson who said something of the of the following nature:  We are an imperfect species and so shall be all of our institutions.

As to the third, I cannot imagine the necessity of much change in the right to keep.  I do think there needs to adjustments to the right to bear.  Again, it's complicated and it will only be solved by cooler heads willing to compromise.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

2aguy said:


> No......the most violent, and dangerous criminals are being released over and over again by the democrat party.


Where in the hell do you get this shit?

Political Parties don't release people from prison though elected party members do have obvious influence in both convictions and probation rates.

Follow the below link for a hard dose of reality and quit drinking Trump's Koolaide.








						Felony conviction rates are up nationwide. These states are reconsidering how they classify crimes
					

In recent decades, every state has seen a dramatic increase in the share of its population convicted of a felony, leaving more people facing hurdles in finding a place to live and prompting some states to revisit how they classify crimes.




					www.pbs.org
				




As regards incarceration rates, note that California (a favorite target of reactionaries) is middle of the road.  

Note further, that in 2010 more than 15% of the adult population in Georgia was behind bars.  Is this because Georgia is tougher on crime or because Georgia breeds more criminals?  Either way, something in Georgia is thoroughly insane as in 1 in 6 adults behind bars.


----------



## 2aguy

BLUE COLLAR said:


> Where in the hell do you get this shit?
> 
> Political Parties don't release people from prison though elected party members do have obvious influence in both convictions and probation rates.
> 
> Follow the below link for a hard dose of reality and quit drinking Trump's Koolaide.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Felony conviction rates are up nationwide. These states are reconsidering how they classify crimes
> 
> 
> In recent decades, every state has seen a dramatic increase in the share of its population convicted of a felony, leaving more people facing hurdles in finding a place to live and prompting some states to revisit how they classify crimes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.pbs.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As regards incarceration rates, note that California (a favorite target of reactionaries) is middle of the road.
> 
> Note further, that in 2010 more than 15% of the adult population in Georgia was behind bars.  Is this because Georgia is tougher on crime or because Georgia breeds more criminals?  Either way, something in Georgia is thoroughly insane as in 1 in 6 adults behind bars.




You are an idiot..........San Francisco just recalled, by a majority of voters, their left wing, Soros prosecutor and other states are now trying to do the same.....

This is just a sample.......

*New York...*



The Mayor of New York City held a press conference yesterday that was full of fire and brimstone. The cover of the New York Post really says it all. “_Mayor’s plea: We took 2,600 guns… But the shooters are back on the streets_.” 

---

The Mayor is clearly frustrated and it’s reached the point where he feels compelled to point out the obvious. He said, “_after the shooting, after the arrest, after being let go — You know what they do? They go do another shooting_.” The NYPD is already aware of this because they keep arresting the same people over and over again. 

He pointed out that criminals in New York City “no longer believe you can’t do a shooting.” He continued, saying that criminals don’t take criminal justice seriously anymore.

While the Mayor didn’t mention him by name, he was clearly making a reference to Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg. The DA came into office promising to put fewer people behind bars and proceeded to make good on that threat. 



NYC Mayor: Our prosecutors are "a laughingstock" of the country*



California..



Two days after the Uvalde shooting in Texas, the California State Senate passed a bill that would allow schools not to report threats or attacks against employees to law enforcement.

----*

According to the Bill, it would repeal the provision of existing law where it requires that “whenever any employee of a school district or county superintendent of schools is attacked, assaulted, or physically threatened by any pupil, the employee and any person under whose direction or supervision the employee is employed who has knowledge of the incident are required to promptly report the incident to specified law enforcement authorities.”

SB 1273 would then make such reports to law enforcement voluntary.

*
*



California Senate Passes Bill to Allow Schools Not to Report Threats to Police

=========



Philly....



*This year, though, we’ve jumped the shark. We’re on pace for over 600 murders—the most ever. An Inquirer story last week laid out some even more disturbing findings. Since Krasner took office, the number of gun crime arrests has nearly tripled, but the conviction rate for gun crimes has plunged from 63 percent in 2017 to 49 percent in 2019. In January, I reported that, under Krasner, homicides have jumped a whopping 58 percent; just 21 percent of shootings since 2015 led to criminal charges, and less than one-tenth of those resulted in convictions.

-----



The DA’s own data dashboard shows that, every year of his tenure, Krasner’s office has dismissed or withdrawn more violent cases and gun cases than the year before. In fact, the average annual number of such cases that were dismissed or withdrawn has increased by 85 percent during Krasner’s tenure, compared with the four years before he took office. All of this despite the fact that the police are making more gun arrests than at any time since 2015.*



Larry Krasner is losing the battle against homicide. Will voters even care?



New york, 4/25/22



We recently looked at the results of New York City Mayor Eric Adams bringing back the special gun crimes task force of the NYPD, though these days the various units deployed around the city have the much friendlier name of Neighborhood Safety Teams. The Mayor reported that in just the first few weeks of operation, the NSTs had taken dozens of guns off the streets and made more than two dozen arrests. The vast majority of them had one thing in common. The suspects generally had prior convictions or arrests for similar crimes. So that’s some great news, right? Getting more shooters and illegal guns off the street was the stated objective and if they keep up this good work the city should see some measurable improvements. 

*There’s just one problem, however. Of those 25 suspects arrested on gun charges, how many of them do you think are still behind bars? If you guessed “one,” give yourself a cookie. All the rest of them have been sprung. (NY Post)



Remember all of those gun charges the NYPD was finally bringing? Never mind*

California...



California Democrats hate the gun, not the gunman – Orange County Register

Now that Democrats have supermajorities in the California state Legislature, they’ve rolled into Sacramento with a zest for lowering the state’s prison population and have interpreted St. Augustine’s words of wisdom to mean, “Hate the gun, not the gunman.”

I say this because, once they finally took a break from preaching about the benefits of stricter gun control, the state Senate voted to loosen sentencing guidelines for criminals convicted of gun crimes.

Currently, California law requires anyone who uses a gun while committing a felony to have their sentence increased by 10 years or more in prison — on top of the normal criminal penalty. If enacted, Senate Bill 620 would eliminate that mandate.

*The bill, which passed on a 22-14 party-line vote, with support only from Democrats, now heads to the state Assembly for consideration. 

Republicans and the National Rifle Association have vowed to campaign against it.*

Why have Democrats suddenly developed a soft spot for criminals convicted of gun crimes? The bill’s author, state Sen. Steve Bradford, D-Gardena, says that he was motivated to write the bill after a 17-year-old riding in a car involved in a drive-by shooting was sentenced to 25 years in prison, even though he claims that he wasn’t the one who pulled the trigger.
------------
Prop. 57, for example, very deceptively and fundamentally changed the definition of what constitutes a “non-violent” offense.


*supplying a firearm to a gang member,*

l
*felon obtaining a firearm,

discharging a firearm on school grounds*



New York...



But now he may have a serious problem on his hands in the form of Alvin Bragg, the newly installed District Attorney for Manhattan. Almost immediately upon taking office, Bragg sent out a lengthy memo to all of the prosecutors under his office, issuing instructions that run almost 100% in defiance of the new mayor’s agenda. Prosecutors will be forbidden to seek jail terms for convicts in nearly all cases. In fact, to wind up behind bars at all, you’re probably going to have to literally kill someone or commit one of a handful of other extremely violent crimes. Oh, and almost nobody will be required to post bail. (NY Post)

New Manhattan DA promises to keep "emptying the jails"



Chicago's kim foxx

Chicago mayor, State Attorney Kim Foxx clash over deadly shootout





washington



So why are Washington Democrats offering up a bill in the state legislature to lower the penalties for drive-by shootings? Well, there’s woke and then there’s just plain stupid. Washington state Democrats are vying to become the best stupid they can be, bless ’em.

Currently, Washington law holds that a drive-by shooter should get an aggravated enhancement if he is arrested and prosecuted—and that’s a big if. Such an enhancement could land a drive-by murderer a life prison sentence.

But under a bill proposed for the upcoming Washington state legislature by white, woke ex-con state Rep. Tarra Simmons and her co-sponsor David Hackney, the reduction in penalties is a move toward “racial equity.” That’s right, drive-by shooting _prosecutorial outcomes_ are racist. Never mind all the black and brown people who are the disproportionate victims of drive-by shootings.

Washington State Democrats Want Decreased Penalties for Drive-By Shooters Because... Aw, You Guessed

Minnesota...



colleague Bill Walsh explains:



> The presumptive sentences are displayed in a grid that is used by judges to determine the appropriate sentence once someone is convicted of a felony. The y-axis on the grid refers to the severity level of the crime, from low-level assault (1) all the way to murder (11). The x-axis refers to the criminal history score of the perpetrator.


You can follow the link to see the grid.



> On Dec. 16, 2021, the Sentencing Guidelines Commission will vote on a proposal to eliminate custody status points from consideration for felony sentences. The commission believes criminals should not be given stronger sentences if they commit more crimes while on probation or parole, or even if they’ve escaped custody. That will mean lower sentences for criminals who commit murder, rape, assault, robbery and felony DWI!


This proposed change would lower presumptive sentences for convicted felons in all categories, with sex criminals getting a special break:



> Worse yet, sex offenders currently receive double points for their custody status, so eliminating this part of the grid will disproportionally benefit the worst criminals in our system.



On Crime, Liberals Still Don't Get It





School shooter released in illinois..

She Single-Handedly Stopped a School Shooting, But It Hasn't Been 'Happily Ever After' For Angela McQueen - The Truth About Guns

democrat judge



In Michigan, simply carrying a firearm without a concealed carry license can result in a mandatory minimum two-year prison sentence, but three teens who broke into a gun store in Saginaw could avoid prison time altogether despite pleading guilty to fifteen felony charges.



Remy M. Delgado, Preston W. O’Leary, and Travontis D. Miller are all adults now, but they were 17-years old when they broke into the Showtime Guns & Ammo store on August 2nd, 2019 and stole approximately 50 firearms. Most of those haven’t been recovered, though police have traced one of those guns to the murder of an 87-year old woman last December. Despite the laundry list of felony offenses and the violent crime associated with their theft, however, Judge Andre R. Borrello told the teens back in June that he would sentence all three of them under the Holmes Youthful Trainee Act, which allows a judge to divert defendants to probation. If they successfully complete their probationary term, their record is wiped clean.

On Thursday, the three men appeared before Borello for sentencing, but the public isn’t allowed to know what sentences were actually handed down.

---

Judge Borello, who once chaired the Saginaw County Democratic Committee before he was appointed to the bench by then-Gov. Jennifer Granholm,



Teens Get Slap On Wrist For Gun Store Burglary, Theft


----------



## M14 Shooter

BLUE COLLAR said:


> As to the first question, what is the point of having something unless it's in a proper state of repair?


So...  you cannot demonstrate any factual basis for your meaningless opinion statement.   No surprise


> As to the second question, we the people decide,


No.  Congress and the states decide, and express that decision through the law.  So says the constitution
As such, thy have deemed the "well regulated militia" to be the militia as it stands, at present.


> As to the third, I cannot imagine the necessity of much change in the right to keep.


That's not what I asked you.
I asked you what effect all this prattle about a "well-regulated militia" has to do with my right to keep and bear arms.
Well?


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

M14 Shooter said:


> So...  you cannot demonstrate any factual basis for your meaningless opinion statement.   No surprise
> 
> No.  Congress and the states decide, and express that decision through the law.  So says the constitution
> As such, thy have deemed the "well regulated militia" to be the militia as it stands, at present.
> 
> That's not what I asked you.
> I asked you what effect all this prattle about a "well-regulated militia" has to do with my right to keep and bear arms.
> Well?


I made a considerable effort to evenly address several questions that you raised.  Are you paying attention?

You already know what the prattle (your word) means.  The right to bear arms shall not be abridged due to the (then) need of a well-regulated militia.  It's written in plain English.  Is it the term _well-regulated militia_ that has you confused?  Check post #298 for an example of what well-regulated militia meant to the founders.

As for your indignant "Well", what part of the following did you not understand.  _ "I cannot imagine the necessity of much change in the right to keep. I do think there needs to adjustments to the right to bear." _ That is my opinion, now stated for at least a second time.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

2aguy said:


> You are an idiot..........San Francisco just recalled, by a majority of voters, their left wing, Soros prosecutor and other states are now trying to do the same.....
> 
> This is just a sample.......
> 
> *New York...*
> 
> 
> 
> The Mayor of New York City held a press conference yesterday that was full of fire and brimstone. The cover of the New York Post really says it all. “_Mayor’s plea: We took 2,600 guns… But the shooters are back on the streets_.”
> 
> ---
> 
> The Mayor is clearly frustrated and it’s reached the point where he feels compelled to point out the obvious. He said, “_after the shooting, after the arrest, after being let go — You know what they do? They go do another shooting_.” The NYPD is already aware of this because they keep arresting the same people over and over again.
> 
> He pointed out that criminals in New York City “no longer believe you can’t do a shooting.” He continued, saying that criminals don’t take criminal justice seriously anymore.
> 
> While the Mayor didn’t mention him by name, he was clearly making a reference to Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg. The DA came into office promising to put fewer people behind bars and proceeded to make good on that threat.
> 
> 
> 
> NYC Mayor: Our prosecutors are "a laughingstock" of the country
> 
> 
> 
> *California..
> 
> 
> 
> Two days after the Uvalde shooting in Texas, the California State Senate passed a bill that would allow schools not to report threats or attacks against employees to law enforcement.
> 
> ----*
> 
> According to the Bill, it would repeal the provision of existing law where it requires that “whenever any employee of a school district or county superintendent of schools is attacked, assaulted, or physically threatened by any pupil, the employee and any person under whose direction or supervision the employee is employed who has knowledge of the incident are required to promptly report the incident to specified law enforcement authorities.”
> 
> SB 1273 would then make such reports to law enforcement voluntary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Senate Passes Bill to Allow Schools Not to Report Threats to Police
> 
> =========
> 
> 
> 
> Philly....
> 
> 
> 
> *This year, though, we’ve jumped the shark. We’re on pace for over 600 murders—the most ever. An Inquirer story last week laid out some even more disturbing findings. Since Krasner took office, the number of gun crime arrests has nearly tripled, but the conviction rate for gun crimes has plunged from 63 percent in 2017 to 49 percent in 2019. In January, I reported that, under Krasner, homicides have jumped a whopping 58 percent; just 21 percent of shootings since 2015 led to criminal charges, and less than one-tenth of those resulted in convictions.
> 
> -----
> 
> 
> 
> The DA’s own data dashboard shows that, every year of his tenure, Krasner’s office has dismissed or withdrawn more violent cases and gun cases than the year before. In fact, the average annual number of such cases that were dismissed or withdrawn has increased by 85 percent during Krasner’s tenure, compared with the four years before he took office. All of this despite the fact that the police are making more gun arrests than at any time since 2015.*
> 
> 
> 
> Larry Krasner is losing the battle against homicide. Will voters even care?
> 
> 
> 
> New york, 4/25/22
> 
> 
> 
> We recently looked at the results of New York City Mayor Eric Adams bringing back the special gun crimes task force of the NYPD, though these days the various units deployed around the city have the much friendlier name of Neighborhood Safety Teams. The Mayor reported that in just the first few weeks of operation, the NSTs had taken dozens of guns off the streets and made more than two dozen arrests. The vast majority of them had one thing in common. The suspects generally had prior convictions or arrests for similar crimes. So that’s some great news, right? Getting more shooters and illegal guns off the street was the stated objective and if they keep up this good work the city should see some measurable improvements.
> 
> *There’s just one problem, however. Of those 25 suspects arrested on gun charges, how many of them do you think are still behind bars? If you guessed “one,” give yourself a cookie. All the rest of them have been sprung. (NY Post)
> 
> 
> 
> Remember all of those gun charges the NYPD was finally bringing? Never mind*
> 
> California...
> 
> 
> 
> California Democrats hate the gun, not the gunman – Orange County Register
> 
> Now that Democrats have supermajorities in the California state Legislature, they’ve rolled into Sacramento with a zest for lowering the state’s prison population and have interpreted St. Augustine’s words of wisdom to mean, “Hate the gun, not the gunman.”
> 
> I say this because, once they finally took a break from preaching about the benefits of stricter gun control, the state Senate voted to loosen sentencing guidelines for criminals convicted of gun crimes.
> 
> Currently, California law requires anyone who uses a gun while committing a felony to have their sentence increased by 10 years or more in prison — on top of the normal criminal penalty. If enacted, Senate Bill 620 would eliminate that mandate.
> 
> *The bill, which passed on a 22-14 party-line vote, with support only from Democrats, now heads to the state Assembly for consideration.
> 
> Republicans and the National Rifle Association have vowed to campaign against it.*
> 
> Why have Democrats suddenly developed a soft spot for criminals convicted of gun crimes? The bill’s author, state Sen. Steve Bradford, D-Gardena, says that he was motivated to write the bill after a 17-year-old riding in a car involved in a drive-by shooting was sentenced to 25 years in prison, even though he claims that he wasn’t the one who pulled the trigger.
> ------------
> Prop. 57, for example, very deceptively and fundamentally changed the definition of what constitutes a “non-violent” offense.
> 
> 
> *supplying a firearm to a gang member,*
> 
> l
> *felon obtaining a firearm,
> 
> discharging a firearm on school grounds*
> 
> 
> 
> New York...
> 
> 
> 
> But now he may have a serious problem on his hands in the form of Alvin Bragg, the newly installed District Attorney for Manhattan. Almost immediately upon taking office, Bragg sent out a lengthy memo to all of the prosecutors under his office, issuing instructions that run almost 100% in defiance of the new mayor’s agenda. Prosecutors will be forbidden to seek jail terms for convicts in nearly all cases. In fact, to wind up behind bars at all, you’re probably going to have to literally kill someone or commit one of a handful of other extremely violent crimes. Oh, and almost nobody will be required to post bail. (NY Post)
> 
> New Manhattan DA promises to keep "emptying the jails"
> 
> 
> 
> Chicago's kim foxx
> 
> Chicago mayor, State Attorney Kim Foxx clash over deadly shootout
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> washington
> 
> 
> 
> So why are Washington Democrats offering up a bill in the state legislature to lower the penalties for drive-by shootings? Well, there’s woke and then there’s just plain stupid. Washington state Democrats are vying to become the best stupid they can be, bless ’em.
> 
> Currently, Washington law holds that a drive-by shooter should get an aggravated enhancement if he is arrested and prosecuted—and that’s a big if. Such an enhancement could land a drive-by murderer a life prison sentence.
> 
> But under a bill proposed for the upcoming Washington state legislature by white, woke ex-con state Rep. Tarra Simmons and her co-sponsor David Hackney, the reduction in penalties is a move toward “racial equity.” That’s right, drive-by shooting _prosecutorial outcomes_ are racist. Never mind all the black and brown people who are the disproportionate victims of drive-by shootings.
> 
> Washington State Democrats Want Decreased Penalties for Drive-By Shooters Because... Aw, You Guessed
> 
> Minnesota...
> 
> 
> 
> colleague Bill Walsh explains:
> 
> 
> You can follow the link to see the grid.
> 
> 
> This proposed change would lower presumptive sentences for convicted felons in all categories, with sex criminals getting a special break:
> 
> 
> 
> On Crime, Liberals Still Don't Get It
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> School shooter released in illinois..
> 
> She Single-Handedly Stopped a School Shooting, But It Hasn't Been 'Happily Ever After' For Angela McQueen - The Truth About Guns
> 
> democrat judge
> 
> 
> 
> In Michigan, simply carrying a firearm without a concealed carry license can result in a mandatory minimum two-year prison sentence, but three teens who broke into a gun store in Saginaw could avoid prison time altogether despite pleading guilty to fifteen felony charges.
> 
> 
> 
> Remy M. Delgado, Preston W. O’Leary, and Travontis D. Miller are all adults now, but they were 17-years old when they broke into the Showtime Guns & Ammo store on August 2nd, 2019 and stole approximately 50 firearms. Most of those haven’t been recovered, though police have traced one of those guns to the murder of an 87-year old woman last December. Despite the laundry list of felony offenses and the violent crime associated with their theft, however, Judge Andre R. Borrello told the teens back in June that he would sentence all three of them under the Holmes Youthful Trainee Act, which allows a judge to divert defendants to probation. If they successfully complete their probationary term, their record is wiped clean.
> 
> On Thursday, the three men appeared before Borello for sentencing, but the public isn’t allowed to know what sentences were actually handed down.
> 
> ---
> 
> Judge Borello, who once chaired the Saginaw County Democratic Committee before he was appointed to the bench by then-Gov. Jennifer Granholm,
> 
> 
> 
> Teens Get Slap On Wrist For Gun Store Burglary, Theft


Please note that this is a discussion forum - not a paste forum.  A modicum of evidentiary material is certainly not unreasonable, but you appear to be throwing a mountain of shit against the wall without having processed how it supports the sophomoric generalizations in your earlier post.

___________________________________
A small example from your paste:

_School shooter released in illinois..

She Single-Handedly Stopped a School Shooting, But It Hasn't Been 'Happily Ever After' For Angela McQueen - The Truth About Guns

democrat judge_
________________

Care to address what this single sample means?  What is your point?


----------



## M14 Shooter

BLUE COLLAR said:


> I made a considerable effort to evenly address several questions that you raised.  Are you paying attention?
> 
> You already know what the prattle (your word) means.  The right to bear arms shall not be abridged due to the (then) need of a well-regulated militia.  It's written in plain English.  Is it the term _well-regulated militia_ that has you confused?  Check post #298 for an example of what well-regulated militia meant to the founders.
> 
> As for your indignant "Well", what part of the following did you not understand.  _ "I cannot imagine the necessity of much change in the right to keep. I do think there needs to adjustments to the right to bear." _ That is my opinion, now stated for at least a second time.


M'kay...
Thus, you agree: all this prattle about a "well-regulated militia" has nothing to do with my right to keep and bear arms.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

M14 Shooter said:


> So...  you cannot demonstrate any factual basis for your meaningless opinion statement.   No surprise
> 
> No.  Congress and the states decide, and express that decision through the law.  So says the constitution
> As such, thy have deemed the "well regulated militia" to be the militia as it stands, at present.
> 
> That's not what I asked you.
> I asked you what effect all this prattle about a "well-regulated militia" has to do with my right to keep and bear arms.
> Well?


In review, I do not believe my first response to the above post properly addressed my compliant of what I read as gross generalizing in your post #481 where you wrote:   _* "No......the most violent, and dangerous criminals are being released over and over again by the democrat party."*_

I challenged the above as generalizing and you responded by assembling a few dozen examples, ('a sample" as you put it) of incidents supporting your generalization.  That doesn't cut it in a country of more than 350 million.  I could selectively present a few dozen incidents to support just about any position. 

Try this, do a google inquiring "do-gooder accidentally shoots innocent bystander".  I did so and got back seven pages of accounts wherein a bystander was shot as a result of gun negligence (mostly by LEOs).  

Shall we generalize that all friendly fire is the fault of LEOs on the merit of the few dozen google results?  Certainly not, and neither do I accept the generalization that all the violence in this county is the fault of the Democratic Party.  That's just your _consciousness of guilt _at work.

Your failed intellect is the result of substituting a gun for a small dick.  Sorry (not really) - but you did open your last piece of bullshit to me with _*"you're an idiot"*_.  Reap what you sow.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

M14 Shooter said:


> M'kay...
> Thus, you agree: all this prattle about a "well-regulated militia" has nothing to do with my right to keep and bear arms.


I agree that responsible, well-meaning, citizens have a right to arm themselves in self-defense.  However, I do not accept that said right is carte-blank, that said right comes without a responsibility to co-operate with the general welfare - despite that such co-operation may present some degree of imposition.  There are no perfect solutions.

While I am bound to accept the Heller Case as current law, I am not bound to accept it on an intellectual level.  I do not believe that the 2ndA was written to convey an individual right.  Rather, it was written, just as its opening clause announces: to accommodate a well-regulated militia.  

So, I'm (kind of) on your side.  I just think you are using the wrong argument when you indulge the 2ndA.  Your right to self-defense (including arms) is a natural right just as many gun defenses appropriately argue. 

But again, there will be no perfect solutions in weighing individual rights against the general welfare.


----------



## M14 Shooter

BLUE COLLAR said:


> In review, I do not believe my first response to the above post properly addressed my compliant of what I read as gross generalizing in your post #481 where you wrote:   _* "No......the most violent, and dangerous criminals are being released over and over again by the democrat party."*_


I didn't write that.


----------



## M14 Shooter

BLUE COLLAR said:


> I agree that responsible, well-meaning, citizens have a right to arm themselves in self-defense.


And thus, all this prattle about a "well-regulated militia" has nothing to do with my right to keep and bear arms.        
Thank you 


BLUE COLLAR said:


> While I am bound to accept the Heller Case as current law, I am not bound to accept it on an intellectual level.


No one cares, so...


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

M14 Shooter said:


> And thus, all this prattle about a "well-regulated militia" has nothing to do with my right to keep and bear arms.
> Thank you
> 
> No one cares, so...


Your first statement is correct: the 2ndA does not state a guarantee to bear arms except through the archaic mechanism of a militia that does not exist.  Of course, there is Scalia's bastardization of grammar that interprets an individual right.  That will pass though I do not mean that it will put an end to gun rights. 

Regarding the incomplete sentence:  Not only do lots of people care but they appear to be a majority.


----------



## flan327

Orangecat said:


> Illiterate, as usual.


Come again?

IQ TEST?


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

M14 Shooter said:


> I didn't write that.


I know you did not, and don't believe I said that you did.  If I did, my apology.


----------



## flan327

BLUE COLLAR said:


> Your first statement is correct: the 2ndA does not state a guarantee to bear arms except through the archaic mechanism of a militia that does not exist.  Of course, there is Scalia's bastardization of grammar that interprets an individual right.  That will pass though I do not mean that it will put an end to gun rights.
> 
> Regarding the incomplete sentence:  Not only do lots of people care but they appear to be a majority.


I’ll never own a gun
BUT
I support your right to legally purchase one
Or 100


----------



## M14 Shooter

BLUE COLLAR said:


> Your first statement is correct: the 2ndA does not state a guarantee to bear arms except through the archaic mechanism of a militia that does not exist


This is a lie.   It says no such thing.


BLUE COLLAR said:


> Regarding the incomplete sentence:  Not only do lots of people care but they appear to be a majority.


Fallacy:  _Argumentum ad populum_


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

woodwork201 said:


> I've read the Constitution probably 250 times or more and never noticed the "at all times" clause.  Luckily we live in a digital age where you can even do an electronic search for terms or phrases that the brain and the eyes just plain ignore when reading; it can happen to all of  us.  So I opened the plain text versions of the Constitution, the Federalist papers, the anti-Federalist papers, the notes from the Continental Congress and just every document I could find.  There must be something missing in my downloaded copies because I never found the phrase "at all times" in any context related top the militia or the right to keep and bear arms.  Perhaps you could share your copies where you found such a requirement.


Below I've pasted the two sentences in their entirety because you appear to have taken what I wrote out of context.  

I wrote: _"I'm *pretty sure* the militia is suppose to be well-regulated *(organized)* at all times - even when not in immediate need. If it's not prepared to quickly assemble and act, it's a nothing-burger. Where are the regulations that organize it?" _ 

I hedged because I generally dislike absolutes.  It simply strikes me that something that is not consistent is not likely well regulated.  

I did enjoy your comment about "terms or phrases that the brain and the eyes just plain ignore when reading."  Perhaps that's what happened to you when you read the two sentences.  If I may, the mind often sees what it expects or wants which is why it's not wise to do your own editing.  

There are other explantions but I'll tread lightly.


----------



## Orangecat

flan327 said:


> Come again?
> 
> IQ TEST?


^moron^


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

flan327 said:


> I’ll never own a gun
> BUT
> I support your right to legally purchase one
> Or 100


Thanks, but I don't own a gun at present and have no plans to buy one.  

Like you, I'm not opposed to gun ownership.  However, I am opposed to the lack of regulation, particularly in urban areas.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

BLUE COLLAR said:


> Thanks, but I don't own a gun at present and have no plans to buy one.
> 
> Like you, I'm not opposed to gun ownership.  However, I am opposed to the lack of regulation, particularly in urban areas.



Chicago had tons of regulation. It didn't work. Not even the ban. Weird.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

BlackSand said:


> .
> 
> All of the things listed above are already against the law and covered by Federal Statute.
> So ... Your Society and Civilization in general are already protecting you and your Rights.
> 
> .​


Bullshit.

The protection fell on its face in Texas when those nineteen kids were slaughtered.  Their young lives might have been saved had a simple background check been required.   But background checks are too inconvenient?  That, and then there's the conspiracy nuts who fear the government is out to take all their guns.


----------



## flan327

Orangecat said:


> ^moron^


MLS

CAPISCH?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

BLUE COLLAR said:


> Bullshit.
> 
> The protection fell on its face in Texas when those nineteen kids were slaughtered.  Their young lives might have been saved had a simple background check been required.   But background checks are too inconvenient?  That, and then there's the conspiracy nuts who fear the government is out to take all their guns.



The killer passed a background check.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Chicago had tons of regulation. It didn't work. Not even the ban. Weird.


I can't speak for Chicago. 

I live in San Diego, CA where we have fairly strict gun laws.  Over the last twenty years or more, the per capita murder rate in San Diego is virtually half the national average.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

Toddsterpatriot said:


> The killer passed a background check.


They do background checks in Texas?  I'd like some detail on that.

Didn't he buy his weapons the day (or day after), he was age eligible?


----------



## flan327

BLUE COLLAR said:


> I can't speak for Chicago.
> 
> I live in San Diego, CA where we have fairly strict gun laws.  Over the last twenty years or more, the per capita murder rate in San Diego is virtually half the national average.


Good

Every big city has its own unique character and issues


----------



## flan327

BLUE COLLAR said:


> They do background checks in Texas?  I'd like some detail on that.
> 
> Didn't he buy his weapons the day (or day after), he was age eligible?


I think so

IIRC he asked his older sister to buy the weapons the day before his birthday 
And she said no


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

BLUE COLLAR said:


> I can't speak for Chicago.
> 
> I live in San Diego, CA where we have fairly strict gun laws.  Over the last twenty years or more, the per capita murder rate in San Diego is virtually half the national average.



*I live in San Diego, CA where we have fairly strict gun laws. *

Chicago banned handguns from 1982 to 2010. Didn't end gun crime.


----------



## BlackSand

BLUE COLLAR said:


> Bullshit.
> 
> The protection fell on its face in Texas when those nineteen kids were slaughtered.  Their young lives might have been saved had a simple background check been required.   But background checks are too inconvenient?  That, and then there's the conspiracy nuts who fear the government is out to take all their guns.


_._

Well, we don't need to pretend that society and the civilization you so dearly love is worth a damn when it comes to protecting you.

Background checks aren't necessarily inconvenient, and the shooter in Texas had one conducted when he bought the firearms.
It's not a conspiracy theory when they tell you they are going to do it, start making a list of where they are going to start,
and start passing laws to do exactly that.

.​


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

BLUE COLLAR said:


> They do background checks in Texas?  I'd like some detail on that.
> 
> Didn't he buy his weapons the day (or day after), he was age eligible?



_Federal law requires federally licensed firearms dealers (but not private sellers) to initiate a background check on the purchaser prior to sale of a firearm__. Federal law provides states with the option of serving as a state “point of contact” and conducting their own background checks using state, as well as federal, records and databases, or having the checks performed by the FBI using only the federal National Instant Criminal Background Check System (“NICS”) database. (Note that state files are not always included in the federal database.)

Texas is not a point of contact state for the NICS. Texas has no law requiring firearms dealers to initiate background checks prior to transferring a firearm. As a result, in Texas, firearms dealers must initiate the background check required by federal law by contacting the FBI directly.1_









						Background Check Procedures in Texas | Giffords
					

Texas has no law requiring firearms dealers to initiate background checks prior to transferring a firearm.




					giffords.org


----------



## Orangecat

flan327 said:


> MLS
> 
> CAPISCH?


Still: ^moron^


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

BlackSand said:


> _._
> 
> Well, we don't need to pretend that society and the civilization you so dearly love is worth a shit when it comes to protecting you.
> 
> Background checks aren't necessarily inconvenient, and the shooter in Texas had one conducted when he bought the firearms.
> It's not a conspiracy theory when they tell you they are going to do it, start making a list of where they are going to start,
> and start passing laws to do exactly that.
> 
> .​


Who is they, and do you honestly think Republicans are going to co-operate without safeguards to protect gun rights?  

I'm a fairly progressive person as are many of the people I know, and I don't see them inclined to the kind of nonsense about which you are concerned.  I sure as hell know that my conservative friends wouldn't sit for it.

This country is in a lot of trouble if we let the lunatic fringe dictate the discourse.  I hope we are better than that.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

BLUE COLLAR said:


> This country is in a lot of trouble if we let the lunatic fringe dictate the discourse. I hope we are better than that.



We are better, that's why AOC and the Squad are so whiney.


----------



## flan327

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *I live in San Diego, CA where we have fairly strict gun laws. *
> 
> Chicago banned handguns from 1982 to 2010. Didn't end gun crime.


Oh my GLADIOLUS 

NOTHING IS GOING TO

END CRIME


----------



## woodwork201

BLUE COLLAR said:


> Below I've pasted the two sentences in their entirety because you appear to have taken what I wrote out of context.
> 
> I wrote: _"I'm *pretty sure* the militia is suppose to be well-regulated *(organized)* at all times - even when not in immediate need. If it's not prepared to quickly assemble and act, it's a nothing-burger. Where are the regulations that organize it?" _
> 
> I hedged because I generally dislike absolutes.  It simply strikes me that something that is not consistent is not likely well regulated.
> 
> I did enjoy your comment about "terms or phrases that the brain and the eyes just plain ignore when reading."  Perhaps that's what happened to you when you read the two sentences.  If I may, the mind often sees what it expects or wants which is why it's not wise to do your own editing.
> 
> There are other explantions but I'll tread lightly.


So you do admit there's no "at all times" clause about the militia in law or the Constitution, right?  So what you said in those two sentences, both originally and when you pasted them again, is unfounded because there's nothing that says "at all times".  

In fact, there's no requirement that the militia be well-regulated.  The 2nd Amendment recognized that a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state and, in so recognizing, forbade the government from infringing on the right to keep and bear arms.  If the government chooses to only sort-of regulate, or even not regulate, the militia during times of peace, that's allowed.  

But if the people are disarmed, and should the government need to well-regulate the militia in order to ensure the security of the United States, it would fail because, as the 2nd Amendment states, a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free nation.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

Toddsterpatriot said:


> _Federal law requires federally licensed firearms dealers (but not private sellers) to initiate a background check on the purchaser prior to sale of a firearm__. Federal law provides states with the option of serving as a state “point of contact” and conducting their own background checks using state, as well as federal, records and databases, or having the checks performed by the FBI using only the federal National Instant Criminal Background Check System (“NICS”) database. (Note that state files are not always included in the federal database.)
> 
> Texas is not a point of contact state for the NICS. Texas has no law requiring firearms dealers to initiate background checks prior to transferring a firearm. As a result, in Texas, firearms dealers must initiate the background check required by federal law by contacting the FBI directly.1_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Background Check Procedures in Texas | Giffords
> 
> 
> Texas has no law requiring firearms dealers to initiate background checks prior to transferring a firearm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> giffords.org


If I understand correctly, Texas Law does not require but Federal does require Texas Dealers to perform a background check.  I suppose if I were in charge, I'd like to be more familiar with the specifics involved in a background check. 

You learn something every day.  Thanks.

I'll admit that there it is simply no way to stop all of the violence.  Suffice that we make an effort that it makes a dent.  While I boasted earlier about the low murder rate in San Diego, the reality is that the difference is a matter of only about two murders per 100,000 people.  Not to make light of saving two lives.


----------



## BlackSand

BLUE COLLAR said:


> Who is they, and do you honestly think Republicans are going to co-operate without safeguards to protect gun rights?
> 
> I'm a fairly progressive person as are many of the people I know, and I don't see them inclined to the kind of nonsense about which you are concerned.  I sure as hell know that my conservative friends wouldn't sit for it.
> 
> This country is in a lot of trouble if we let the lunatic fringe dictate the discourse.  I hope we are better than that.


.

"They" are the Assclowns on Capitol Hill ... I need not make any other distinctions.

I am a Classical Liberal, and your political inclinations do not change the words or meaning of the Constitution.
It doesn't matter what you think is reasonable if the Federal Government hasn't been granted the Power to do it ...
And it doesn't matter how many people you can get to agree with you.

If you would like things to be different, then you are going to have to take it to the States and the People 
in order to amend or repeal a portion of the Constitution.
Ask yourself why "they" and you haven't done that.

That is what is required and there is a process defined in the Constitution for doing just that.

.​


----------



## woodwork201

BLUE COLLAR said:


> They do background checks in Texas?  I'd like some detail on that.
> 
> Didn't he buy his weapons the day (or day after), he was age eligible?


You really have no business in this conversation if you're that ignorant of gun law in the United States.  When people who know absolutely nothing on the topic call for more gun regulations the anti-gunners use that as justification.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

BLUE COLLAR said:


> If I understand correctly, Texas Law does not require but Federal does require Texas Dealers to perform a background check.  I suppose if I were in charge, I'd like to be more familiar with the specifics involved in a background check.
> 
> You learn something every day.  Thanks.
> 
> I'll admit that there it is simply no way to stop all of the violence.  Suffice that we make an effort that it makes a dent.  While I boasted earlier about the low murder rate in San Diego, the reality is that the difference is a matter of only about two murders per 100,000 people.  Not to make light of saving two lives.



_If I understand correctly, Texas Law does not require __but Federal does_

And he passed it.

_I'll admit that there it is simply no way to stop all of the violence.  Suffice that we make an effort that it makes a dent._

Didn't seem to make a dent in Chicago, banning handguns for 28 years.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

woodwork201 said:


> So you do admit there's no "at all times" clause about the militia in law or the Constitution, right?  So what you said in those two sentences, both originally and when you pasted them again, is unfounded because there's nothing that says "at all times".
> 
> In fact, there's no requirement that the militia be well-regulated.  The 2nd Amendment recognized that a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state and, in so recognizing, forbade the government from infringing on the right to keep and bear arms. * If the government chooses to only sort-of regulate, or even not regulate, the militia during times of peace, that's allowed. *
> 
> But if the people are disarmed, and should the government need to well-regulate the militia in order to ensure the security of the United States, it would fail because, as the 2nd Amendment states, a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free nation.


You are ignoring almost everything I just wrote.  I never suggested such a clause existed, and yet you make an effort to make it sound as if I did.  Why? 

You are also ignoring the prefatory clause in the 2ndA by use of a nearly incoherent rendering of its grammar. 

As to what I bolded:  Given your logic, it appears that you'd be okay with disbanding the standing military until the next war pops up?  What a load of crap.

I gave you a civil answer despite recognizing that you were lighting fires with straw.  Perhaps a different broach is in order.  If you can't conduct honest discourse, why not shit and fall back in it.


----------



## woodwork201

BLUE COLLAR said:


> You are ignoring almost everything I just wrote.  I never suggested such a clause existed, and yet you make an effort to make it sound as if I did.  Why?
> 
> You are also ignoring the prefatory clause in the 2ndA by use of a nearly incoherent rendering of its grammar.
> 
> As to what I bolded:  Given your logic, it appears that you'd be okay with disbanding the standing military until the next war pops up?  What a load of crap.
> 
> I gave you a civil answer despite recognizing that you were lighting fires with straw.  Perhaps a different broach is in order.  If you can't conduct honest discourse, why not shit and fall back in it.



If you meant no implication that such a clause existed then from where do you get the idea that the militia must be ready at all times or it doesn't count?    And my interpretation of the prefatory clause is perfect.  If you'd care to debate it, then challenge it.  

Where did I suggest disbanding the standing army?  That's a completely dishonest response - a lie, even.  Yes, what you wrote about disbanding the standing army is a load of crap - but that's not what you meant.  What you meant was to make up a lie about what I said and then call what I didn't say a load of crap.

So you're proving to be not just ignorant but dishonest along with it.  And you talk about me conducting honest discourse?  Amazing.


----------



## 2aguy

BLUE COLLAR said:


> Bullshit.
> 
> The protection fell on its face in Texas when those nineteen kids were slaughtered.  Their young lives might have been saved had a simple background check been required.   But background checks are too inconvenient?  That, and then there's the conspiracy nuts who fear the government is out to take all their guns.




A mandatory, Federal background check was not only required, it was actually done.....

That you don't know or understand this shows you really don't know what you are posting about.....


----------



## 2aguy

BLUE COLLAR said:


> You are ignoring almost everything I just wrote.  I never suggested such a clause existed, and yet you make an effort to make it sound as if I did.  Why?
> 
> You are also ignoring the prefatory clause in the 2ndA by use of a nearly incoherent rendering of its grammar.
> 
> As to what I bolded:  Given your logic, it appears that you'd be okay with disbanding the standing military until the next war pops up?  What a load of crap.
> 
> I gave you a civil answer despite recognizing that you were lighting fires with straw.  Perhaps a different broach is in order.  If you can't conduct honest discourse, why not shit and fall back in it.




The "prefatory clause," is the dependent, not independent clause, so it doesn't have importance to the actual meaning of the sentence.


----------



## Esdraelon

skews13 said:


> Recognizing that an actual repeal of the Second Amendment—while absolutely just—isn’t likely, the next best thing is to simply recognize that the right to individual gun ownership is _a lesser right_, one whose appearance in that useless amendment subjects it to practical constraint.


Uh-huh... "HAVING COME, TAKE"  Let's see how that works out for ya...


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

2aguy said:


> The "prefatory clause," is the dependent, not independent clause, so it doesn't have importance to the actual meaning of the sentence.


Can you point me to a textbook in grammar stipulating that a prefatory clause has no meaning in a complex sentence?  Your take on the impact of a prefatory clause, that it imparts no meaning to the sentence, is silly.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  A prefatory clause states the purpose as if to say "because".


----------



## Deplorable Yankee




----------



## BLUE COLLAR

woodwork201 said:


> If you meant no implication that such a clause existed then from where do you get the idea that the militia must be ready at all times or it doesn't count?    And my interpretation of the prefatory clause is perfect.  If you'd care to debate it, then challenge it.


I already explained that my statement as to "ready at all times" was simply based on what demand being well-regulated would naturally impart.  I never said anything about a "ready at all times" CLAUSE other that addressing your claim.  What both of us wrote is all here in black and white.  Kindly go back and paste where I used that terminology prior to you making your dishonest claim - or shove the charge up your ass.

Your interpretation of the function of a prefatory clause is not only imperfect, it's nonsensical.  How in the hell does a grammatical device that stipulates the purpose of the sentence not contribute meaning to the sentence?



woodwork201 said:


> Where did I suggest disbanding the standing army?  That's a completely dishonest response - a lie, even.  Yes, what you wrote about disbanding the standing army is a load of crap - but that's not what you meant.  What you meant was to make up a lie about what I said and then call what I didn't say a load of crap.


I introduced my charge with "based on your logic".  Such was neither dishonest nor a lie.  Rather, it simply applied the silly logic you used in shutting down the militia to shutting down the standing military. 



woodwork201 said:


> So you're proving to be not just ignorant but dishonest along with it.  And you talk about me conducting honest discourse?  Amazing.


Suggest you attempt to prove the above on merit of premise, premise, conclusion.  Construct s syllogism and let me know where it leads you.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

Deplorable Yankee said:


> View attachment 659680


I have to admit, that's funny.  Especially the suggestion that George applied no regulations to the conduct of his army.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

2aguy said:


> A mandatory, Federal background check was not only required, it was actually done.....
> 
> That you don't know or understand this shows you really don't know what you are posting about.....


Well, I'll concede that I haven't purchased a firearm if you'll confess you flunked grammar.


----------



## woodwork201

BLUE COLLAR said:


> I already explained that my statement as to "ready at all times" was simply based on what demand being well-regulated would naturally impart.  I never said anything about a "ready at all times" CLAUSE other that addressing your claim.  What both of us wrote is all here in black and white.  Kindly go back and paste where I used that terminology prior to you making your dishonest claim - or shove the charge up your ass.
> 
> Your interpretation of the function of a prefatory clause is not only imperfect, it's nonsensical.  How in the hell does a grammatical device that stipulates the purpose of the sentence not contribute meaning to the sentence?
> 
> 
> I introduced my charge with "based on your logic".  Such was neither dishonest nor a lie.  Rather, it simply applied the silly logic you used in shutting down the militia to shutting down the standing military.
> 
> 
> Suggest you attempt to prove the above on merit of premise, premise, conclusion.  Construct s syllogism and let me know where it leads you.



The militia isn't shut down.  It's never shut down.  And a lie by implication is a lie just as much as an explicit lie.  And an ignoramus is an still an ignoramus.  

And if the prefatory clause justifies the the operative clause, and if the prefatory clause is part of the amendment, then until the Constitution is amended to say that a well-regulated militia is no longer necessary to the security of a free state then both the prefatory and the operative clauses are in force.

The Constitution states that a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state.  Then nothing Congress, modern enemies, the President, or the Joint Chiefs of Staff can do that, as far as the security of the United States of America is concerned, changes that.  Once again:_ 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._

Slice it any way your little heart desires, it requires a constitutional amendment to legally infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.


----------



## flan327

woodwork201 said:


> So you do admit there's no "at all times" clause about the militia in law or the Constitution, right?  So what you said in those two sentences, both originally and when you pasted them again, is unfounded because there's nothing that says "at all times".
> 
> In fact, there's no requirement that the militia be well-regulated.  The 2nd Amendment recognized that a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state and, in so recognizing, forbade the government from infringing on the right to keep and bear arms.  If the government chooses to only sort-of regulate, or even not regulate, the militia during times of peace, that's allowed.
> 
> But if the people are disarmed, and should the government need to well-regulate the militia in order to ensure the security of the United States, it would fail because, as the 2nd Amendment states, a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free nation.


You need help


----------



## woodwork201

BLUE COLLAR said:


> Can you point me to a textbook in grammar stipulating that a prefatory clause has no meaning in a complex sentence?  Your take on the impact of a prefatory clause, that it imparts no meaning to the sentence, is silly.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  A prefatory clause states the purpose as if to say "because".


Apples are sweet, I like apples.

Do I like apples only because they're sweet?  Or could I also like them because  they're healthy?  Do I dislike Granny Smith apples?  Moron.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

woodwork201 said:


> The militia isn't shut down.  It's never shut down.  And a lie by implication is a lie just as much as an explicit lie.  And an ignoramus is an still an ignoramus.


But, but, you stated that it would be okay to shut down the militia until there's another war.  What's next, the standing army, the navy, Top gun? 



woodwork201 said:


> And if the prefatory clause justifies the the operative clause, and if the prefatory clause is part of the amendment, then until the Constitution is amended to say that a well-regulated militia is no longer necessary to the security of a free state then both the prefatory and the operative clauses are in force.


I think you better read what Scalia actually wrote.  The Heller decision is not what you project, not even close.

Well, if the prefatory clause, as you suggest, is still in force, where are the fucking regulations?  I want to know the name of your Commanding Officer so I can ask that you to be relieved of your duty.  



woodwork201 said:


> The Constitution states that a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state.  Then nothing Congress, modern enemies, the President, or the Joint Chiefs of Staff can do that, as far as the security of the United States of America is concerned, changes that.  Once again:_ 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._
> 
> Slice it any way your little heart desires, it requires a constitutional amendment to legally infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.


Good grief, there is no militia, well-regulated or otherwise.  When was the last time the militia showed its face?  Wait, I could be wrong.  Was that the militia that Trump called to action on Jan 6?


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

woodwork201 said:


> Apples are sweet, I like apples.
> 
> Do I like apples only because they're sweet?  Or could I also like them because  they're healthy?  Do I dislike Granny Smith apples?  Moron.


The above is not a syllogism.  Let me help.

_All men have dicks.
Woodie is a man.
Therefore, Woodie has a dick._

Of course, in the example just given, the logic is called to question because Woodie is a Dick.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

BLUE COLLAR said:


> Well, if the prefatory clause, as you suggest, is still in force, where are the fucking regulations? I want to know the name of your Commanding Officer so I can ask that you to be relieved of your duty.



If the 2nd Amendment said, only the militia is allowed to keep and bear arms, you might have a point.


----------



## 2aguy

Toddsterpatriot said:


> If the 2nd Amendment said, only the militia is allowed to keep and bear arms, you might have a point.




Yeah....they can never explain that.....


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

woodwork201 said:


> The militia isn't shut down.  It's never shut down.  And a lie by implication is a lie just as much as an explicit lie.  And an ignoramus is an still an ignoramus.


I object your honor.  

Ignoramuses can be educated which is what I'm trying to do here: Educate the grammar challenged.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

Toddsterpatriot said:


> If the 2nd Amendment said, only the militia is allowed to keep and bear arms, you might have a point.


I appreciate where you are trying to go, but I'm not trying to challenge the right to keep and bear arms, the right to protect self and mine.  Rather, I protest the notion that gun ownership and conduct cannot be regulated.  It can and already is.


----------



## woodwork201

BLUE COLLAR said:


> But, but, you stated that it would be okay to shut down the militia until there's another war.  What's next, the standing army, the navy, Top gun?
> 
> 
> I think you better read what Scalia actually wrote.  The Heller decision is not what you project, not even close.
> 
> Well, if the prefatory clause, as you suggest, is still in force, where are the fucking regulations?  I want to know the name of your Commanding Officer so I can ask that you to be relieved of your duty.
> 
> 
> Good grief, there is no militia, well-regulated or otherwise.  When was the last time the militia showed its face?  Wait, I could be wrong.  Was that the militia that Trump called to action on Jan 6?



Besides being completely ignorant on the topic of gun control and the right to keep and bear arms, demonstrated over and over again but never so clearly as when you didn't even know that current Federal law already requires background checks from all sales by licensed gun dealers, you are also a very dishonest person.

I never said it would be ok to shut down the militia until there's another war.  This is yet another lie.  Your credibility on this site goes down with every post you make.

And since the Navy is provided for in the Constitution, it would taker an amendment to shut down the Navy as well. 

And top gun?  Really?  You're as ignorant about the military as you are about guns.  I'm starting to think it's mental deficiency rather than ignorance; I think you're at least as much of a moron as you are just ignorant.  Top Gun is a program within the Navy's Aviation Warfare program to train the best pilots in tactics and practices, both in the plane and their on-the-ground work, so that they can go back to their commands and train the pilots in their commands.  I the end, it's simply a train the trainer course.  Moron.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

Orangecat said:


> It was a meme, dumbass, not a cartoon.
> 
> Lol. Such a child.
> 
> Yes, you've been making a fool of yourself for days here.
> 
> Quite the opposite, actually. You're just too stupid to comprehend your own position, dope.
> 
> You being here proves that theory incorrect.


I see that you're again engaging your favorite topic, me.


----------



## Orangecat

BLUE COLLAR said:


> I see that you're again engaging your favorite topic, me.


Favorite punching-down bag, that is.
My post you responded to was from 2 days ago.
If you didn't crave the attention, you would let it go, kid.


----------



## flan327

BlackSand said:


> .
> 
> "They" are the Assclowns on Capitol Hill ... I need not make any other distinctions.
> 
> I am a Classical Liberal, and your political inclinations do not change the words or meaning of the Constitution.
> It doesn't matter what you think is reasonable if the Federal Government hasn't been granted the Power to do it ...
> And it doesn't matter how many people you can get to agree with you.
> 
> If you would like things to be different, then you are going to have to take it to the States and the People
> in order to amend or repeal a portion of the Constitution.
> Ask yourself why "they" and you haven't done that.
> 
> That is what is required and there is a process defined in the Constitution for doing just that.
> 
> .​


Which takes HOW MANY DECADES?


----------



## flan327

Orangecat said:


> Favorite punching-down bag, that is.
> My post you responded to was from 2 days ago.
> If you didn't crave the attention, you would let it go, kid.


Absolutely 

Like a toddler throwing a temper tantrum because he got the ORANGE cup rather than the RED cup


----------



## woodwork201

BLUE COLLAR said:


> I object your honor.
> 
> Ignoramuses can be educated which is what I'm trying to do here: Educate the grammar challenged.


That's right; ignoramuses can, presumably or at least are not, by definition, unable to, read and learn, correcting the deficiency in their knowledge and understanding.  Morons, on the other hand, are incapable of learning even many simple concepts.  That is why it is becoming more and more clear that your lack of understanding of even the most basic facts on every topic about which you post cannot be attributed to ignorance and must, therefore, be attributed to mental deficiency.

There are sites and forums where grammar is the topic.  This isn't one of them.  But even so, your understanding of grammar is lacking.  Either, once again, you haven't done the study and are ignorant, or more likely, you are just not capable of learning and we can tell you a hundred times that the prefatory clause may justify the operative clause but it does not change the meaning of the operative clause.  As I also pointed out (we'll get to that response in a moment), the justification provided in the prefatory clause is not necessarily the only justification for the operative clause and removal of the prefatory clause does not eliminate the meaning of the operative clause.  The prefatory clause could easily be replaced by any other justification or by no justification at all.  For instance: I like apples.

And, most important, the thing that makes you wrong about your understanding of the prefatory clause in the 2nd Amendment is that the militia has never been removed as a constitutional portion of the defense of the United States.  The constitutionally optional part is the standing army, not the militia.

There is no need for a general or commanding officer in the militia.  Congress can fund and Congress can establish training requirements, and governors can choose to train or not train, the militia but neither can eliminate the militia.  The amount of regulation, or what regulation is in place Congress and governors can, within reason, decide.  

It is also important to understand that words and their meanings evolve over time but the Constitution must be interpreted based on the definitions at the time and the context used at the time.  Regulation in that day and context was not about rules but meant, instead, similar to what it would mean today to put a regulator on a water source to make the flow and pressure consistent.  Or a voltage regulator in a car to keep the voltage consistent.   By well-regulated, they meant things like all of the militia might have a firearm that can share parts, such as an AR-15/M-16 platform, or use the same ammunition, such as 9mm or 5.56mm.

It is accepted by some, mostly by fools, that the militia is the National Guard, but the government has no power whatsoever to send the militia to fight on foreign shores.  The Constitution explicitly limits the power of the Federal Government to use the militia for incursion and insurrection and violation of federal law.  So, no, the National Guard is not the Militia of the Constitution.

So what is the militia?

In Presser v. Illinois in 1886, Justice William Woods said:

*“It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United states, as well as that of the states; and in view of this prerogative of the general government as well as of its general powers, the States’ cannot, even laying the constitutional provisions in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the General Government."*​
Or the words of Tench Coxe,  capitalization and italics are Coxe's own, the red is mine:

*The power of the sword, say the minority of Pennsylvania, is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for THE POWERS OF THE SWORD ARE IN THE HANDS OF THE YEOMANRY OF AMERICA FROM SIXTEEN TO SIXTY. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. 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 birth-right of an American. What clause in the state or federal constitution hath given away that important right . . . . The 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.”*​


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

flan327 said:


> Which takes HOW MANY DECADES?



What are you waiting for? Get to work.


----------



## woodwork201

BLUE COLLAR said:


> The above is not a syllogism.  Let me help.
> 
> _All men have dicks.
> Woodie is a man.
> Therefore, Woodie has a dick._
> 
> Of course, in the example just given, the logic is called to question because Woodie is a Dick.


Once again, you prove ignorance.  The 2nd Amendment is not a syllogism.  A syllogism requires two or more logical premises that, when combined, yield a result or conclusion that is true every time the premises are met - a syllogism requires a total of  at least 3 parts and that is the first clue that the 2nd Amendment is not a syllogism; it is the 10th clue that you're an idiot.

The 2nd Amendment is simply a compound sentence.  You'll likely not find a single suggestion by any intelligent constitutional scholar suggesting that it is a syllogism; I certainly was not able to.


----------



## BlackSand

flan327 said:


> Which takes HOW MANY DECADES?


.

Are you suggesting we should ignore the Constitution if it doesn't fit your immediate desires?

How does that grant the Federal Government the Power to do what you want,
if the only thing that establishes the Federal Government you want to do it, is the Constitution you want to ignore?

Sounds more like shortsighted doomed to fail cherry picking.

.​


----------



## FA_Q2

BLUE COLLAR said:


> I object your honor.
> 
> Ignoramuses can be educated which is what I'm trying to do here: Educate the grammar challenged.


You keep saying this over and over again but the explicit explanation of the grammar you keep complaining about has been directly addressed by M14 and you have repeatedly and consistently ignored it.

considering that you have refused to address those specific points and continually show that you are not aware of the law in the first place concerning guns, I fail to see why you think any of us following the thread should take your position seriously.

Unless you can point to the post where you actually address those points....


----------



## Weatherman2020

skews13 said:


> Laws about freedom of speech don’t just shift when it comes to content and context, they’re also constantly updated to address something else: technology. Radio. Movies. Television. The internet. Even comic books. All have sparked changes in what is permitted and how speech is regulated. But somehow, we pretend that guns are different; that words written when the most deadly weapon required a ramrod and black powder mean that we can’t make adjustments for a semi-automatic rifle and a 30-round clip.
> 
> The truth is that guns _are _different. Because the right to bear arms is _a lesser right_. A right that was never intended to exist at all.
> 
> What makes individual gun ownership a lesser right? It’s a right that only exists in the minds of a handful of hard-right Supreme Court justices who happen to be on the court at this moment. Until 2008, no federal court had _ever_ ruled that the Second Amendment included a right to individual gun ownership. It was always understood as it was written: Guns were allowed in individual hands as a means to supply the armed forces.
> 
> Here’s the _Milwaukee Independent_ looking at how Chief Justice Warren Burger discussed the Second Amendment.
> 
> That the Second Amendment exists at all is more an accident of timing than an attempt to put guns in the hands of every American.
> The amendment grew out of a fear that having a standing army would leave the nation open to depredations by an authoritarian leader, or that the nascent democracy would be overthrown by a military junta. To that end, they explicitly inserted the Second Amendment as an alternative means of providing national defense.
> 
> There were multiple drafts of the Second Amendment. Every one of them includes text explaining that this amendment exists only because it’s needed to provide for the nation’s defense.
> Just a year after the Constitution was ratified, George Washington nudged Congress to create an official U.S. military, but the still-fearful Congress limited that force to just few hundred soldiers and officers. It would be another six years before it was allowed to grow significantly. When war came in 1812 two things were immediately obvious: The number of soldiers then in the official U.S. military were far from enough to defend the nation, and the poorly organized civilian militias for which the Second Amendment was created were an absolute failure when it came to national defense.
> 
> In the next year, the professional military of the United States grew by over 300%. “Second Amendment solutions” were on their way out.
> The Second Amendment is failure. It _never _worked for its intended purposes. It was born from  the understandable fears of a new nation engaged in a radical new scheme. But it was a mistake. It may be the most costly mistake this nation has ever made other than failing to end slavery at the outset.
> 
> The right thing to do would be to recognize that mistake and pass a new amendment that simply ends the Second Amendment, just as the 18th Amendment was repealed by the 21st Amendment in 1933. (Take a drink.)
> 
> Instead, we get statements like this piece of profound ignorance. One that is wrong. Wrong. Wrong again. And then … still wrong.
> 
> 
> Recognizing that an actual repeal of the Second Amendment—while absolutely just—isn’t likely, the next best thing is to simply recognize that the right to individual gun ownership is _a lesser right_, one whose appearance in that useless amendment subjects it to practical constraint.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Second Amendment was a failure from the start, and should have been repealed 200 years ago
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as an unconstrained right. Speech has limits. Religion has limits. Assembly has limits. The idea that any of these things can be completely “free” of government oversight is a pipedream, and everyone from the founders to the...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dailykos.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Individual gun ownership rights are the result of a Supreme Court decision. Specifically Heller v DC
> 
> Just like abortion rights are the result of a Supreme Court decision. Specifically Roe v Wade
> 
> The current court is ready to take away Roe v Wade.
> 
> A future court can do the same with Heller v DC.


Will you just put a big sign on your front door saying

*THIS HOUSE HAS NO GUNS FOR SELF PROTECTION*

and shutup?


----------



## M14 Shooter

BLUE COLLAR said:


> Bullshit.
> The protection fell on its face in Texas when those nineteen kids were slaughtered.  Their young lives might have been saved had a simple background check been required.


The TX shooter bought his guns legally, inclduing a background check.


----------



## M14 Shooter

BLUE COLLAR said:


> .I live in San Diego, CA where we have fairly strict gun laws.  Over the last twenty years or more, the per capita murder rate in San Diego is virtually half the national average.


This is where I ask you ro demonstrate the necessary relationship between these laws and this lower rate of murder.
You will respond by avoiding, if not running away, from the challenge.


----------



## M14 Shooter

BLUE COLLAR said:


> They do background checks in Texas?  I'd like some detail on that.


Federal law.    Been in place since 1993.


----------



## M14 Shooter

BLUE COLLAR said:


> You are also ignoring the prefatory clause in the 2ndA by use of a nearly incoherent rendering of its grammar.


As you know, the prefatory clause does not in anyway create a restriction on the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms by the people.

_It is therefore entirely sensible that the Second Amendment ’s prefatory clause announces the purpose for which the right was codified: to prevent elimination of the militia.  The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting.  But the threat that the new Federal Government would destroy the citizens’ militia by taking away their arms was the reason that right—unlike some other English rights—was codified in a written Constitution.  Justice Breyer’s assertion that individual self-defense is merely a “subsidiary interest” of the right to keep and bear arms, see post, at 36, is profoundly mistaken.  He bases that assertion solely upon the prologue—but that can only show that self-defense had little to do with the right’s codification; it was the central component of the right itself._

Please demonsttate this to be unsound.


----------



## M14 Shooter

BLUE COLLAR said:


> Rather, I protest the notion that gun ownership and conduct cannot be regulated.  It can and already is.


Sure.
So long as those regulations do not infringe of the exercise of the right to keep an bear arms.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

FA_Q2 said:


> You keep saying this over and over again but the explicit explanation of the grammar you keep complaining about has been directly addressed by M14 and you have repeatedly and consistently ignored it.
> 
> considering that you have refused to address those specific points and continually show that you are not aware of the law in the first place concerning guns, I fail to see why you think any of us following the thread should take your position seriously.
> 
> Unless you can point to the post where you actually address those points....


The above post is humorous in the fact that it commits the very sin which it charges.  It does so in spades.  There isn't a single sentence that addresses the topic of this thread other than in belching empty opinions of me.  

That said, I'll be happy to briefly explain my position on the grammar of the singular sentence that is the 2ndA.  

The Second Amendment to our Constitution is a complex sentence consisting of two clauses: a prefatory (dependent clause), and the main clause (independent).  By independent it does not mean that the main clause stands on its own.  It means (grammatically) that it could stand on its own if one wished to remove the prefatory clause but that would change what the founders meant.  Had it been their intent to simply convey the right to possess and bear arms, the founders could have simply used the independent clause.  THEY DID NOT! 

In short, I read the whole sentence while some choose to ignore or demote the prefatory clause. 

As for M14, we've butt heads several times on various topics and levels.  If you have a problem with something I wrote in one of those exchanges, spell it out.  Put some hair on your fucking point.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

M14 Shooter said:


> Sure.
> So long as those regulations do not infringe of the exercise of the right to keep an bear arms.


I'll tackle this one first as it's a relatively simple answer.  

I do not think we are far apart on this point.  However, I would qualify that reasonable regulations not be excluded.  Of course, we could likely differ on what is reasonable.  That said, rational people appreciate that there are no perfect solutions.


----------



## M14 Shooter

BLUE COLLAR said:


> I do not think we are far apart on this point.  However, I would qualify that reasonable regulations not be excluded.


Unnecessary and ineffective restrictions are not reasonable - indeed, they are, inherently, infringements,.
But, good on you to agree that the right to keep and bear arms may be regulated so long as those regulations do not infringe of the exercise of same.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

M14 Shooter said:


> As you know, the prefatory clause does not in anyway create a restriction on the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms by the people.


I do agree but insist that is also does not confer rights beyond the purpose for which the 2ndA was written: to insure the provision for a militia in a time when there was no provision for a standing army.  I'll suggest that had there been a standing army, the 2ndA may have never been written.  

But again, I do not contend that the aforementioned means that there is no right to possess and bear arms.  I believe that there is a natural right to possess and bear.  I just don't believe that said right is carte blank, that "we the people" do not also possess a right to reasonable regulation.  The devil will be in the detail.



M14 Shooter said:


> _It is therefore entirely sensible that the Second Amendment ’s prefatory clause announces the purpose for which the right was codified: to prevent elimination of the militia.  The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting.  But the threat that the new Federal Government would destroy the citizens’ militia by taking away their arms was the reason that right—unlike some other English rights—was codified in a written Constitution.  Justice Breyer’s assertion that individual self-defense is merely a “subsidiary interest” of the right to keep and bear arms, see post, at 36, is profoundly mistaken.  He bases that assertion solely upon the prologue—but that can only show that self-defense had little to do with the right’s codification; it was the central component of the right itself._
> 
> Please demonsttate this to be unsound.


What you wrote seems to suggest that the founders were incapable of writing what the gun lobby wishes there to be: a carte blank right to bear any form of arms, at any place and time each individual chooses.

In the sense of Breyer's choice of words, I'd again agree with you.  Rather than "subsidiary interest", I'd prefer that it be expressed as "separate interest".  Here we reach what I interpret as the crux of the matter.  I do not take the 2ndA to either limit or expand personal rights.  Had what the gun lobby contends been the purpose, the founders could have simply not included a qualifying prefatory clause and addressed individual rights rather than the right of the people.

One more fucking time: this does not mean that I do not acknowledge an individual right.  It means that I do not acknowledge that the 2ndA even addresses that issue.


----------



## M14 Shooter

BLUE COLLAR said:


> I do agree but insist that is also does not confer rights beyond the purpose for which the 2ndA was written: to insure the provision for a militia in a time when there was no provision for a standing army


The 2nd Amendment does no confer any rights, period.
And you can "insist" all you want - it does not change the fact the right to keep and bear arms, as protected ny the 2nd estends to weapons and uses not realted to the militia.


BLUE COLLAR said:


> I'll suggest that had there been a standing army, the 2ndA may have never been written.


The US Army has been in continuous service since 1775, and the power to raise armies was given to Congress by the Constitution.


BLUE COLLAR said:


> But again, I do not contend that the aforementioned means that there is no right to possess and bear arms.  I believe that there is a natural right to possess and bear.  I just don't believe that said right is carte blank, that "we the people" do not also possess a right to reasonable regulation.  The devil will be in the detail.


Unnecessary and ineffective regulations are, inherently unreasonable -  and thus, infringements.


BLUE COLLAR said:


> What you wrote seems to suggest that the founders were incapable of writing...


-I- didn't write it
And I dont see your demonstration as it how it is unsound.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

M14 Shooter said:


> Unnecessary and ineffective restrictions are not reasonable - indeed, they are, inherently, infringements,.
> But, good on you to agree that the right to keep and bear arms may be regulated so long as those regulations do not infringe of the exercise of same.


No needless insult but the definitions of "unnecessary and ineffective" are subject to the same whim of definition to be found in the ever-popular legal term of reasonable.  

One man's reason is another's torment.


----------



## M14 Shooter

BLUE COLLAR said:


> No needless insult but the definitions of "unnecessary and ineffective" are subject to the same whim of definition...


That's why there must be a _demonstration_, rather than simply a statement of opinion, of necessity and efficacy for a regulation to not quality as an infringement.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

M14 Shooter said:


> The 2nd Amendment does no confer any rights, period.
> And you can "insist" all you want - it does not change the fact the right to keep and bear arms, as protected ny the 2nd extnds to weapons anduuses not realted to the militia.
> 
> The US Army has been in continous service since 1775.
> 
> Unnecessary anf ineffective regulartuions are, inheteently unreasonable -  and thus, infringements.
> 
> -I- didn't write it
> And I dont see your demonstration as ot how it is unsound.


The Second Amendment was written to insure the arming of a militia, period.  It does not address the individual rights on which you and I principally seem to agree exist.

Regardless, regulations, or any other part of the problem, are properly addressed by simply dismissing them as inherently unreasonable.  You want this to be simple.  It's not.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

M14 Shooter said:


> That's why there must be a _demonstration_, rather than simply a statement of opinion, of necessity and efficacy for a regulation to not quality as an infringement.


I have no problem with that whatsoever.


----------



## M14 Shooter

BLUE COLLAR said:


> The Second Amendment was written to insure the arming of a militia, period.  It does not address the individual rights...


It does.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms.
Not the right of the militia. 
Not the right of the people in the militia.
Not the right of the people to be in the militia
Not the right of the people to keep and bear arms while in the militia.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms.


BLUE COLLAR said:


> Regardless, regulations, or any other part of the problem, are properly addressed by simply dismissing them as inherently unreasonable.


Unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on the exercise of -any- right are unreasonable.
They inherently constitute infringements.
Shall not be infringed.


----------



## M14 Shooter

BLUE COLLAR said:


> I have no problem with that whatsoever.


And thus, the threshold for "reasonable" restrictions.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

woodwork201 said:


> Once again, you prove ignorance.  The 2nd Amendment is not a syllogism.  A syllogism requires two or more logical premises that, when combined, yield a result or conclusion that is true every time the premises are met - a syllogism requires a total of  at least 3 parts and that is the first clue that the 2nd Amendment is not a syllogism; it is the 10th clue that you're an idiot.


Who said the 2ndA was a syllogism?  

I requested deductive reasoning in support of your moronic claim that "a prefatory clause has no meaning in a complex sentence".  Why then did the founders place said clause in their sentence?  Are you suggesting that they were idiots?



woodwork201 said:


> The 2nd Amendment is simply a compound sentence.  You'll likely not find a single suggestion by any intelligent constitutional scholar suggesting that it is a syllogism; I certainly was not able to.


No, it's not a compound sentence.  It's a complex sentence.  Quick, do a google and hurriedly run back in here with a half baked understanding of simple, complex, compound, and complex-compound.  

I never claimed the 2ndA was a syllogism, but feel free to paste where I did so, or STFU.


----------



## M14 Shooter

BLUE COLLAR said:


> Why then did the founders place said clause in their sentence?  Are you suggesting that they were idiots?


You ask like this has not been repeatedly and soundly addressed.

_It is therefore entirely sensible that the Second Amendment ’s prefatory clause announces the purpose for which the right was codified: to prevent elimination of the militia.  The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting.  But the threat that the new Federal Government would destroy the citizens’ militia by taking away their arms was the reason that right—unlike some other English rights—was codified in a written Constitution.  Justice Breyer’s assertion that individual self-defense is merely a “subsidiary interest” of the right to keep and bear arms, see post, at 36, is profoundly mistaken.  He bases that assertion solely upon the prologue—but that can only show that self-defense had little to do with the right’s codification; it was the central component of the right itself._

Please demonstrate this to be unsound.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

M14 Shooter said:


> It does.
> The right of the people to keep and bear arms.
> Not the right of the militia.
> Not the right of the people in the militia.
> Not the right of the people to be in the militia
> Not the right of the people to keep and bear arms while in the militia.
> The right of the people to keep and bear arms.
> 
> Unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on the exercise of -any- right are unreasonable.
> They inherently constitute infringements.
> Shall not be infringed.


What does the 2ndA say is the reason for the people's right to possess and bear?  Do the terms _individual right_ and _the right of the people_ automatically refer to the same thing?  Does the 2ndA specifically say anything about individual rights, about anything outside of the necessity to a militia?


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

M14 Shooter said:


> You ask like this has not been repeatedly and soundly addressed.
> 
> _It is therefore entirely sensible that the Second Amendment ’s prefatory clause announces the purpose for which the right was codified: to prevent elimination of the militia.  The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting.  But the threat that the new Federal Government would destroy the citizens’ militia by taking away their arms was the reason that right—unlike some other English rights—was codified in a written Constitution.  Justice Breyer’s assertion that individual self-defense is merely a “subsidiary interest” of the right to keep and bear arms, see post, at 36, is profoundly mistaken.  He bases that assertion solely upon the prologue—but that can only show that self-defense had little to do with the right’s codification; it was the central component of the right itself._
> 
> Please demonstrate this to be unsound.


Excuse me but I addressed this in post #563.


----------



## M14 Shooter

BLUE COLLAR said:


> What does the 2ndA say is the reason for the people's right to possess and bear?


Did you notice how you did not meaningfully address what I said?


----------



## M14 Shooter

BLUE COLLAR said:


> Excuse me but I addressed this in post #563.


Excuse you - nowhere in that post did you demonstrate what I posted to be unsound - so, while you might have _replied_, you did not meaningfully address what I said.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

BLUE COLLAR said:


> What does the 2ndA say is the reason for the people's right to possess and bear?



It doesn't give a reason for the right.
It doesn't give a reason for the right to free speech either..


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

Orangecat said:


> Favorite punching-down bag, that is.
> My post you responded to was from 2 days ago.
> If you didn't crave the attention, you would let it go, kid.


OMG, I've broken the timing rule as set down by a gutless pussy.  

Sorry, but I only sporadically jump into the mud with punk-ass flamers like you.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

M14 Shooter said:


> Excuse you - nowhere in that post did you demonstrate what I posted to be unsound - so, while you might have _replied_, you did not meaningfully address what I said.


I accept your opinion for what it is, an opinion. 

Meanwhile, the 2ndA does not address individual rights.  It expresses the collective right of *the people *to possess and bear arms in the interest of *maintaining a militia.  *


----------



## M14 Shooter

BLUE COLLAR said:


> I accept your opinion for what it is, an opinion.


I accept your concession, that you have no meaningful response to what I said.
Thus, your argument, negated.


BLUE COLLAR said:


> Meanwhile, the 2ndA does not address individual rights.


Your statement, above, is a lie.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

Toddsterpatriot said:


> It doesn't give a reason for the right.
> It doesn't give a reason for the right to free speech either..


Sure, it gives a reason for the people's right.  It's expressed in the prefatory clause.

Free Speech is not in the 2ndA though I appreciate that you meant the Constitution.  And, you are correct, unlike the 2ndA there is no prefatory clause in the 1stA.  The rights are simply elaborated.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

M14 Shooter said:


> I accept your concession, that you have no meaningful response to what I said.
> Thus, your argument, negated.
> 
> Your statement, above, is a lie.


I made several concessions to you over the past few pages, but the dishonesty that you express above was not one of them. Please don't put words in my mouth.  You are not very good at it.

Regarding what you call a lie, let's just call it a difference of opinion.


----------



## M14 Shooter

BLUE COLLAR said:


> I made several concessions to you over the past few pages, but the dishonesty that you express above was not one of them.


Fact remains:
You know you cannot meaningfully address the criticisms I laid out against your argument; your refusal to even try amounts in every way to your concession of those criticisms.
Thus, I accept your concession.


BLUE COLLAR said:


> Regarding what you call a lie, let's just call it a difference of opinion.


You know your statement is false.  Thus, a lie.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

BLUE COLLAR said:


> Sure, it gives a reason for the people's right. It's expressed in the prefatory clause.



It doesn't give a reason. 
It doesn't say the reason people have the right to keep and bear arms is to be in a militia.
Or because we might need them in a militia. 
It says we need to protect their right, because we need a militia.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

M14 Shooter said:


> Fact remains:
> You know you cannot meaningfully address the criticisms I laid out against your argument; your refusal to even try amounts in every way to your concession of those criticisms.
> Thus, I accept your concession.
> 
> You know your statement is false.  Thus, a lie.


What a fucking bore.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

Toddsterpatriot said:


> It doesn't give a reason.
> It doesn't say the reason people have the right to keep and bear arms is to be in a militia.
> Or because we might need them in a militia.
> It says we need to protect their right, because we need a militia.


A prefatory clause states a reason or purpose for the operative clause.  Don't take my word; do a google. 

A sentence can have multiple prefatory clauses which could include some of the items on your wish list, but the founders chose to include only the necessity of a well-regulated militia.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

BLUE COLLAR said:


> A prefatory clause states a reason or purpose for the operative clause.  Don't take my word; do a google.
> 
> A sentence can have multiple prefatory clauses which could include some of the items on your wish list, but the founders chose to include only the necessity of a well-regulated militia.



The reason that the right shall not be infringed is because a militia is necessary.


----------



## 2aguy

BLUE COLLAR said:


> The above post is humorous in the fact that it commits the very sin which it charges.  It does so in spades.  There isn't a single sentence that addresses the topic of this thread other than in belching empty opinions of me.
> 
> That said, I'll be happy to briefly explain my position on the grammar of the singular sentence that is the 2ndA.
> 
> The Second Amendment to our Constitution is a complex sentence consisting of two clauses: a prefatory (dependent clause), and the main clause (independent).  By independent it does not mean that the main clause stands on its own.  It means (grammatically) that it could stand on its own if one wished to remove the prefatory clause but that would change what the founders meant.  Had it been their intent to simply convey the right to possess and bear arms, the founders could have simply used the independent clause.  THEY DID NOT!
> 
> In short, I read the whole sentence while some choose to ignore or demote the prefatory clause.
> 
> As for M14, we've butt heads several times on various topics and levels.  If you have a problem with something I wrote in one of those exchanges, spell it out.  Put some hair on your fucking point.




Scalia writes about that in the Heller decision...you should try to read it.....or have someone else read it to you....

*1. Operative Clause.*
*


 a. “Right of the People.” 



The first salient feature of the operative clause is that it codifies a “right of the people.” The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase “right of the people” two other times, in the First Amendment’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment’s Search-and-Seizure Clause. The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”). All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body.5

-----------

Three provisions of the Constitution refer to “the people” in a context other than “rights”—the famous preamble (“We the people”), §2 of Article I (providing that “the people” will choose members of the House), and the Tenth Amendment (providing that those powers not given the Federal Government remain with “the States” or “the people”). Those provisions arguably refer to “the people” acting collectively—but they deal with the exercise or reservation of powers, not rights. Nowhere else in the Constitution does a “right” attributed to “the people” refer to anything other than an individual right.6 What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention “the people,” the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset. As we said in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U. S. 259, 265 (1990):

----

The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose.

--------
*
*Although this structure of the Second Amendment is unique in our Constitution, other legal documents of the founding era, particularly individual-rights provisions of state constitutions, commonly included a prefatory statement of purpose.*
*
-----
*
*But apart from that clarifying function, a prefatory clause does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause. See F. Dwarris, A General Treatise on Statutes 268–269 (P. Potter ed. 1871) (hereinafter Dwarris); T. Sedgwick, The Interpretation and Construction of Statutory and Constitutional Law 42–45 (2d ed. 1874).3 “*
*
---
*
*Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.” We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.*
*


------

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

---

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous armsbearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.

----

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

----

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individualrights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.


*
*https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf*


----------



## 2aguy

BLUE COLLAR said:


> A prefatory clause states a reason or purpose for the operative clause.  Don't take my word; do a google.
> 
> A sentence can have multiple prefatory clauses which could include some of the items on your wish list, but the founders chose to include only the necessity of a well-regulated militia.



And then specifically stated the Right of the People, shall not be infringed, not the Right of a militia to keep arms...


----------



## Orangecat

BLUE COLLAR said:


> OMG, I've broken the timing rule as set down by a gutless pussy.
> 
> Sorry, but I only sporadically jump into the mud with punk-ass flamers like you.


Let it go, kid. We disagree on gun control regulations. 
If you want to fight, find me in a fresh thread. 
This one is done.

Oh, and GFY.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

2aguy said:


> Scalia writes about that in the Heller decision...you should try to read it.....or have someone else read it to you....



The next time you decide to question someone's reading ability in a conversation that is heavily laden with issues of language and grammar, you might want to start with your duck's in order.   Above, you misapplied the use of an ellipsis three times in a single line.  

As for your cut and paste, I'm not here for reading assignments.  If there is an aspect of Scalia's Opinion on which you wish to comment, spit it out and I'll be happy to respond.  



2aguy said:


> *1. Operative Clause.*
> 
> 
> 
> *a. “Right of the People.”
> 
> 
> 
> The first salient feature of the operative clause is that it codifies a “right of the people.” The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase “right of the people” two other times, in the First Amendment’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment’s Search-and-Seizure Clause. The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”). All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body.5
> 
> -----------
> 
> Three provisions of the Constitution refer to “the people” in a context other than “rights”—the famous preamble (“We the people”), §2 of Article I (providing that “the people” will choose members of the House), and the Tenth Amendment (providing that those powers not given the Federal Government remain with “the States” or “the people”). Those provisions arguably refer to “the people” acting collectively—but they deal with the exercise or reservation of powers, not rights. Nowhere else in the Constitution does a “right” attributed to “the people” refer to anything other than an individual right.6 What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention “the people,” the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset. As we said in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U. S. 259, 265 (1990):
> 
> ----
> 
> The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose.
> 
> --------*
> 
> *Although this structure of the Second Amendment is unique in our Constitution, other legal documents of the founding era, particularly individual-rights provisions of state constitutions, commonly included a prefatory statement of purpose.*
> 
> *-----*
> 
> *But apart from that clarifying function, a prefatory clause does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause. See F. Dwarris, A General Treatise on Statutes 268–269 (P. Potter ed. 1871) (hereinafter Dwarris); T. Sedgwick, The Interpretation and Construction of Statutory and Constitutional Law 42–45 (2d ed. 1874).3 “*
> 
> *---*
> 
> *Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.” We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.*
> 
> 
> 
> *------
> 
> (a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
> 
> ---
> 
> (c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous armsbearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
> 
> ----
> 
> (e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
> 
> ----
> 
> (f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individualrights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.*
> 
> 
> 
> *https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf*


----------



## BackAgain

The Second Amendment was a massive success for another important reason:

It was part of the famed bill of rights. Those 10 Amendments needed to become a component part of the Constitution in order to even GET the Constitution ratified. 

*OBVIOUSLY*, therefore, the 2d Amendment was an enormous — *MASSIVE* — success.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

Orangecat said:


> Let it go, kid. We disagree on gun control regulations.
> If you want to fight, find me in a fresh thread.
> This one is done.
> 
> Oh, and GFY.


I agree that we disagree.

Regarding GFY, I'm guessing this to be some sort of sick projection.  You must be very limber.

Btw, YCS&FBII


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

2aguy said:


> And then specifically stated the Right of the People, shall not be infringed, not the Right of a militia to keep arms...


Yes, it did do as you describe after qualifying that the purpose was a well-regulated militia.

Now, if we could just figure to where the militia, and regulations, disappeared.


----------



## Orangecat

BLUE COLLAR said:


> I agree that we disagree.
> 
> Regarding GFY, I'm guessing this to be some sort of sick projection.  You must be very limber.
> 
> Btw, YCS&FBII


----------



## Orangecat

BLUE COLLAR said:


> The next time you decide to question someone's reading ability in a conversation that is heavily laden with* issues of language and grammar*, you might want to start with your *duck's* in order.


The best comedy writes itself.


----------



## woodwork201

BLUE COLLAR said:


> What does the 2ndA say is the reason for the people's right to possess and bear?  Do the terms _individual right_ and _the right of the people_ automatically refer to the same thing?  Does the 2ndA specifically say anything about individual rights, about anything outside of the necessity to a militia?


First off, the 2nd Amendment doesn't say anything about the reason for the people's right to possess and bear arms.  It doesn't talk about the people's right to possess and bear arms except to say that it shall not be infringed.  It clearly limits the power to infringe on a right that exists outside of the 2nd Amendment.

It doesn't matter what it says in the prefatory clause or why it says it.  The operative clause is explicit: the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


----------



## woodwork201

M14 Shooter said:


> You ask like this has not been repeatedly and soundly addressed.
> 
> _It is therefore entirely sensible that the Second Amendment ’s prefatory clause announces the purpose for which the right was codified: to prevent elimination of the militia.  The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting.  But the threat that the new Federal Government would destroy the citizens’ militia by taking away their arms was the reason that right—unlike some other English rights—was codified in a written Constitution.  Justice Breyer’s assertion that individual self-defense is merely a “subsidiary interest” of the right to keep and bear arms, see post, at 36, is profoundly mistaken.  He bases that assertion solely upon the prologue—but that can only show that self-defense had little to do with the right’s codification; it was the central component of the right itself._
> 
> Please demonstrate this to be unsound.


Why are you participating in this conversation? You've already stated that the government can do whatever it wants in restricting people's access to guns.  You can't have it both ways.


----------



## 2aguy

BLUE COLLAR said:


> The next time you decide to question someone's reading ability in a conversation that is heavily laden with issues of language and grammar, you might want to start with your duck's in order.   Above, you misapplied the use of an ellipsis three times in a single line.
> 
> As for your cut and paste, I'm not here for reading assignments.  If there is an aspect of Scalia's Opinion on which you wish to comment, spit it out and I'll be happy to respond.



Yep…….you are shown exactly why you are wrong and you play games to hide it…..


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

Orangecat said:


> The best comedy writes itself.


I invoke the typo defense that you used earlier in this thread.  However, repeating the same mistake three times in the span of less than two dozen words is not a typo.  Rather, it signifies an ignorance.

In Post #590 you pronounced this thread to be done, but here you are again.  You are such a fucking liar.


----------



## BackAgain

BLUE COLLAR said:


> Yes, it did do as you describe after qualifying that the purpose was a well-regulated militia.
> 
> Now, if we could just figure to where the militia, and regulations, disappeared.


It didn’t say “purpose.”


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

woodwork201 said:


> *First off, the 2nd Amendment doesn't say anything about the reason for the people's right to possess and bear arms. * It doesn't talk about the people's right to possess and bear arms except to say that it shall not be infringed.  It clearly limits the power to infringe on a right that exists outside of the 2nd Amendment.


I appreciate that you've shut the prefatory clause out of your mind, but there it is at the very front of the 2ndA.


woodwork201 said:


> It doesn't matter what it says in the prefatory clause or why it says it.  The operative clause is explicit: the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


Sorry, the prefatory clause is there for one reason, to qualify the purpose of the operative clause.  

If you were to say that nothing about the 2ndA disqualifies the natural right to possess and bear arms, I'd agree.  It has not been my intention to declare that the aforementioned right does not exist.  Rather, I have sought to demonstrate that the 2ndA was not written for the specific purpose of reinforcing said natural right but for the purpose clearly stated in the prefatory clause: the necessity of a well-regulated militia.  

However, your natural right is not unlimited.  That fact is enumerated in Heller vs. DC:   

"The Second Amendment right is not unlimited.  We do not cast doubt on concealed-weapons prohibitions, laws barring possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, laws barring firearms in sensitive places like schools and government buildings, and laws imposing conditions on commercial sale of arms.  Also, the sorts of weapons protected are the sorts of small arms that were lawfully possessed at home at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification, not those most useful in military service today, so “M-16 rifles and the like” may be banned."


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

BackAgain said:


> It didn’t say “purpose.”


No, it didn't but fact of grammar: a prefatory clause introduces a reason or purpose as if to say because.

Don't choke on it.


----------



## 2aguy

BLUE COLLAR said:


> I appreciate that you've shut the prefatory clause out of your mind, but there it is at the very front of the 2ndA.
> 
> Sorry, the prefatory clause is there for one reason, to qualify the purpose of the operative clause.
> 
> If you were to say that nothing about the 2ndA disqualifies the natural right to possess and bear arms, I'd agree.  It has not been my intention to declare that the aforementioned right does not exist.  Rather, I have sought to demonstrate that the 2ndA was not written for the specific purpose of reinforcing said natural right but for the purpose clearly stated in the prefatory clause: the necessity of a well-regulated militia.
> 
> However, your natural right is not unlimited.  That fact is enumerated in Heller vs. DC:
> 
> "The Second Amendment right is not unlimited.  We do not cast doubt on concealed-weapons prohibitions, laws barring possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, laws barring firearms in sensitive places like schools and government buildings, and laws imposing conditions on commercial sale of arms.  Also, the sorts of weapons protected are the sorts of small arms that were lawfully possessed at home at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification, not those most useful in military service today, so “M-16 rifles and the like” may be banned."




 Also, the sorts of weapons protected are the sorts of small arms that were lawfully possessed at home at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification, not those most useful in military service today, so “M-16 rifles and the like” may be banned."

Where the fuck did you get that quote........it is nowhere in the Heller decision...

From the actual Heller decision...

*Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

And....*

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. 

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), *the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.*

*--------

And....*

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

*Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001),



From Scalia in the Friedman v Highland Park case........where he specifically names the AR-15 rifle as protected under the Right to keep and bear arms....


https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf*


The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.

Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.


*Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.*


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

2aguy said:


> Yep…….you are shown exactly why you are wrong and you play games to hide it…..


In post #602, I selected a part of the Heller Decision and contributed some remarks of my own.  

What you did was to present a formidable piece of Heller as if to suggest that I accept the challenge of arguing with your paste.  What was your contribution to the paste?  Zip!  

The games are all yours.


----------



## 2aguy

BLUE COLLAR said:


> In post #602, I selected a part of the Heller Decision and contributed some remarks of my own.
> 
> What you did was to present a formidable piece of Heller as if to suggest that I accept the challenge of arguing with your paste.  What was your contribution to the paste?  Zip!
> 
> The games are all yours.




You made a quote and said  it came from the Heller decision....that was a lie.  You named the Heller decision and then put quotes around a paragraph.....that is a lie.....

*However, your natural right is not unlimited. That fact is enumerated in Heller vs. DC:  *

*"The Second Amendment right is not unlimited. We do not cast doubt on concealed-weapons prohibitions, laws barring possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, laws barring firearms in sensitive places like schools and government buildings, and laws imposing conditions on commercial sale of arms. Also, the sorts of weapons protected are the sorts of small arms that were lawfully possessed at home at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification, not those most useful in military service today, so “M-16 rifles and the like” may be banned."*


----------



## BackAgain

BLUE COLLAR said:


> No, it didn't but fact of grammar: a prefatory clause introduces a reason or purpose as if to say because.
> 
> Don't choke on it.


Not true. Nothing to choke on. You’re free to make empty claims. As you just did.

The reference to the militia was a preamble. What it posits is not “the” purpose, but a reason. With one sentence the Framers noted that the people *have* the right to keep and bear arms AND that one of the crucial _reasons_ amounted to the proposed central Federal government being put on notice: ‘You can’t take that right away because _you_ are one of the motivators behind it. _You_ will never be permitted to take arms from the citizens.’

Look. I know it bothers you. Too bad. The government is bound by the Constitution regardless of your wish that the 2d Amendment didn’t exist or that it exists only if the state has a militia.

The operative phrase (not the preamble) is what ultimately controls.


----------



## M14 Shooter

BLUE COLLAR said:


> What a fucking bore.


Because I call you out when you lie, and when you repeat arguments that have been demonstrated unsound?
What a fucking child.


----------



## M14 Shooter

BLUE COLLAR said:


> A prefatory clause states a reason or purpose for the operative clause.


3. Relationship between Prefatory Clause and     Operative Clause

We reach the question, then: Does the preface fit with an operative clause that creates an individual right to keep and bear arms?  It fits perfectly, once one knows the history that the founding generation knew and that we have described above.  That history showed that the way tyrants had eliminated a militia consisting of all the able-bodied men was not by banning the militia but simply by taking away the people’s arms, enabling a select militia or standing army to suppress political opponents.  This is what had occurred in England that prompted codification of the right to have arms in the English Bill of Rights.

The debate with respect to the right to keep and bear arms, as with other guarantees in the Bill of Rights, was not over whether it was desirable (all agreed that it was) but over whether it needed to be codified in the Constitution.  During the 1788 ratification debates, the fear that the federal government would disarm the people in order to impose rule through a standing army or select militia was pervasive in Antifederalist rhetoric.  See, _e.g._, Letters from The Federal Farmer III (Oct. 10, 1787), in 2 The Complete Anti-Federalist 234, 242 (H. Storing ed. 1981).  John Smilie, for example, worried not only that Congress’s “command of the militia” could be used to create a “select militia,” or to have “no militia at all,” but also, as a separate concern, that “[w]hen a select militia is formed; the people in general may be disarmed.”  2 Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution 508–509 (M. Jensen ed. 1976) (hereinafter Documentary Hist.).  Federalists responded that because Congress was given no power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, such a force could never oppress the people.   See, _e.g._, A Pennsylvanian III (Feb. 20, 1788), in The Origin of the Second Amendment  275, 276 (D. Young ed., 2d ed. 2001) (hereinafter Young); White, To the Citizens of Virginia, Feb. 22, 1788, in _id._, at 280, 281; A Citizen of America, (Oct. 10, 1787) in _id._, at 38, 40; Remarks on the Amendments to the federal Constitution, Nov. 7, 1788, in _id._, at 556.  It was understood across the political spectrum that the right helped to secure the ideal of a citizen militia, which might be necessary to oppose an oppressive military force if the constitutional order broke down.

*It is therefore entirely sensible that the Second Amendment ’s prefatory clause announces the purpose for which the right was codified: to prevent elimination of the militia.  The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting.  But the threat that the new Federal Government would destroy the citizens’ militia by taking away their arms was the reason that right—unlike some other English rights—was codified in a written Constitution.  Justice Breyer’s assertion that individual self-defense is merely a “subsidiary interest” of the right to keep and bear arms, see post, at 36, is profoundly mistaken.  He bases that assertion solely upon the prologue—but that can only show that self-defense had little to do with the right’s codification; it was the central component of the right itself.*

Besides ignoring the historical reality that the Second Amendment  was not intended to lay down a “novel principl[e]” but rather codified a right “inherited from our English ancestors,” _Robertson_ v. _Baldwin_, 165 U. S. 275, 281 (1897) , petitioners’ interpretation does not even achieve the narrower purpose that prompted codification of the right.  If, as they believe, the Second Amendment  right is no more than the right to keep and use weapons as a member of an organized militia, see Brief for Petititioners 8—if, that is, the _organized_ militia is the sole institutional beneficiary of the Second Amendment ’s guarantee—it does not assure the existence of a “citizens’ militia” as a safeguard against tyranny.  For Congress retains plenary authority to organize the militia, which must include the authority to say who will belong to the organized force.*17*  That is why the first Militia Act’s requirement that only whites enroll caused States to amend their militia laws to exclude free blacks.  See Siegel, The Federal Government’s Power to Enact Color-Conscious Laws, 92 Nw. U. L. Rev. 477, 521–525 (1998).  Thus, if petitioners are correct, the Second Amendment  protects citizens’ right to use a gun in an organization from which Congress has plenary authority to exclude them.  It guarantees a select militia of the sort the Stuart kings found useful, but not the people’s militia that was the concern of the founding generation.


----------



## M14 Shooter

BLUE COLLAR said:


> As for your cut and paste, I'm not here for reading assignments.  If there is an aspect of Scalia's Opinion on which you wish to comment, spit it out and I'll be happy to respond.


Except that you aren't.
You -ignore- what you know you cannot meaningfully address.


----------



## M14 Shooter

BLUE COLLAR said:


> Yes, it did do as you describe after qualifying that the purpose was a well-regulated militia.


And yet...
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

2aguy said:


> Also, the sorts of weapons protected are the sorts of small arms that were lawfully possessed at home at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification, not those most useful in military service today, so “M-16 rifles and the like” may be banned."
> 
> Where the fuck did you get that quote........it is nowhere in the Heller decision...


I don't believe that what you just presented was the quote.  Rather, you clipped and re-arranged as seems to have pleased your purpose.

Find your way to long about pages 54-55 of the Heller Syllabus where you are welcomed to shit your pants.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

M14 Shooter said:


> Except that you aren't.
> You -ignore- what you know you cannot meaningfully address.


No, I ignore the invitation to dissect an extensive paste job.


----------



## 2aguy

BLUE COLLAR said:


> I don't believe that what you just presented was the quote.  Rather, you clipped and re-arranged as seems to have pleased your purpose.
> 
> Find your way to long about pages 54-55 of the Heller Syllabus where you are welcomed to shit your pants.




Wow......I took the exact quote that you listed as having come from Heller.....I took it from your post...#602

Now...before you can delete that post....your post, in its entirety.......#602



woodwork201 said:


> *First off, the 2nd Amendment doesn't say anything about the reason for the people's right to possess and bear arms. *It doesn't talk about the people's right to possess and bear arms except to say that it shall not be infringed. It clearly limits the power to infringe on a right that exists outside of the 2nd Amendment.


I appreciate that you've shut the prefatory clause out of your mind, but there it is at the very front of the 2ndA.


woodwork201 said:


> It doesn't matter what it says in the prefatory clause or why it says it. The operative clause is explicit: the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


Sorry, the prefatory clause is there for one reason, to qualify the purpose of the operative clause.

If you were to say that nothing about the 2ndA disqualifies the natural right to possess and bear arms, I'd agree. It has not been my intention to declare that the aforementioned right does not exist. Rather, I have sought to demonstrate that the 2ndA was not written for the specific purpose of reinforcing said natural right but for the purpose clearly stated in the prefatory clause: the necessity of a well-regulated militia.  

*However, your natural right is not unlimited. That fact is enumerated in Heller vs. DC: 

"The Second Amendment right is not unlimited. We do not cast doubt on concealed-weapons prohibitions, laws barring possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, laws barring firearms in sensitive places like schools and government buildings, and laws imposing conditions on commercial sale of arms. Also, the sorts of weapons protected are the sorts of small arms that were lawfully possessed at home at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification, not those most useful in military service today, so “M-16 rifles and the like” may be banned."*

Thanks


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

M14 Shooter said:


> And yet...
> The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.


I'd agree with that, but said right is not unlimited.


----------



## 2aguy

BLUE COLLAR said:


> I don't believe that what you just presented was the quote.  Rather, you clipped and re-arranged as seems to have pleased your purpose.
> 
> Find your way to long about pages 54-55 of the Heller Syllabus where you are welcomed to shit your pants.




Heller has 43 pages....



			https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf


----------



## M14 Shooter

BLUE COLLAR said:


> No, I ignore the invitation to dissect an extensive paste job.


And thus, your admission that you -ignore- what you know you cannot meaningfully address.      
Well done.


----------



## M14 Shooter

BLUE COLLAR said:


> I'd agree with that, but said right is not unlimited.


Agree with it or not, it is fact.


----------



## 2aguy

BLUE COLLAR said:


> I'd agree with that, but said right is not unlimited.




I love how you guys think you are clever when you use the two words, "not unlimited."   You are shown the exact things that Scalia wrote in Heller and all the other decisions...but you think "not unlimited," means you can ban every gun and piece of equipment that you want banned........

This is what Scalia actually wrote about "not unlimited," and he doesn't go into weapons or equipment....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

* Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.*

*Then he states.....very clearly....*

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. 

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), 

*the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.*


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

2aguy said:


> Wow......I took the exact quote that you listed as having come from Heller.....I took it from your post...#602
> 
> Now...before you can delete that post....your post, in its entirety.......#602
> 
> 
> I appreciate that you've shut the prefatory clause out of your mind, but there it is at the very front of the 2ndA.
> 
> Sorry, the prefatory clause is there for one reason, to qualify the purpose of the operative clause.
> 
> If you were to say that nothing about the 2ndA disqualifies the natural right to possess and bear arms, I'd agree. It has not been my intention to declare that the aforementioned right does not exist. Rather, I have sought to demonstrate that the 2ndA was not written for the specific purpose of reinforcing said natural right but for the purpose clearly stated in the prefatory clause: the necessity of a well-regulated militia.
> 
> *However, your natural right is not unlimited. That fact is enumerated in Heller vs. DC:
> 
> "The Second Amendment right is not unlimited. We do not cast doubt on concealed-weapons prohibitions, laws barring possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, laws barring firearms in sensitive places like schools and government buildings, and laws imposing conditions on commercial sale of arms. Also, the sorts of weapons protected are the sorts of small arms that were lawfully possessed at home at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification, not those most useful in military service today, so “M-16 rifles and the like” may be banned."*
> 
> Thanks


I stand corrected.  You quoted a small piece for what I provided - not the entire quote.

My mistake.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

M14 Shooter said:


> Agree with it or not, it is fact.


Wow, you make an argument even when there isn't one.


----------



## M14 Shooter

BLUE COLLAR said:


> Wow, you make an argument even when there isn't one.


Your entire purpose here has been to argue against the sentence I posted.
Apparently, you have been swayed.


----------



## 2aguy

BLUE COLLAR said:


> I stand corrected.  You quoted a small piece for what I provided - not the entire quote.
> 
> My mistake.




I quoted the entire quote from your post #602.........You tried to pass off a false quote....


----------



## 2aguy

BLUE COLLAR said:


> I stand corrected.  You quoted a small piece for what I provided - not the entire quote.
> 
> My mistake.




Here.......you show me the post number of your entire quote.....I posted #602....you show me the rest......we'll see where that takes us....


----------



## Orangecat

BLUE COLLAR said:


> I invoke the typo defense that you used earlier in this thread.  However, repeating the same mistake three times in the span of less than two dozen words is not a typo.  Rather, it signifies an ignorance.
> 
> In Post #590 you pronounced this thread to be done, but here you are again.  You are such a fucking liar.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

BLUE COLLAR said:


> you might want to start with your duck's in order.



your ducks


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

BackAgain said:


> The reference to the militia was a preamble. What it posits is not “the” purpose, but a reason.



Yes!


----------



## BackAgain

Toddsterpatriot said:


> your ducks


Pretty sure that correction sailed over his head.


----------



## Orangecat

woodwork201 said:


> It doesn't matter what it says in the prefatory clause or why it says it.  The operative clause is explicit: the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


Fuckstick doesn't seem to comprehend that well regulated militias cannot be formed when necessary if the populace is already disarmed.


----------



## Orangecat

BLUE COLLAR said:


> I invoke the typo defense that you used earlier in this thread.  However, repeating the same mistake three times in the span of less than two dozen words is not a typo.  Rather, it signifies an ignorance.
> 
> In Post #590 you pronounced this thread to be done, but here you are again.  You are such a fucking liar.


----------



## woodwork201

2aguy said:


> Yep…….you are shown exactly why you are wrong and you play games to hide it…..


Debating rules of grammar is far simpler for the ignorant.


----------



## Orangecat

BLUE COLLAR said:


> No, *it didn't but fact of grammar*: a prefatory clause introduces a reason or purpose as if to say because.


Talk about mangling grammar, look at the bolded. Lulz.


----------



## woodwork201

BLUE COLLAR said:


> I'd agree with that, but said right is not unlimited.


You've really backed off; now you're down to only that the right is not unlimited.

Maybe you're right; perhaps there are limits to the natural right.  I disagree but let's just pretend.  The 2nd Amendment says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  So there is absolutely a limit on the authority of government to codify any limits to the right to keep and bear arms.


----------



## woodwork201

> *Me:  First off, the 2nd Amendment doesn't say anything about the reason for the people's right to possess and bear arms. *It doesn't talk about the people's right to possess and bear arms except to say that it shall not be infringed.  It clearly limits the power to infringe on a right that exists outside of the 2nd Amendment.
> *Blue Collar:  I appreciate that you've shut the prefatory clause out of your mind, but there it is at the very front of the 2ndA.*



No, I haven't shut out the prefatory clause.  I do suggest any of the free online reading comprehension courses you can find using your favorite search engine - both for understanding my post and the text of the 2nd Amendment.

The prefatory clause gives a reason why the government cannot infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, not why the right exists.  It says nothing at all about why the right exists.  If you want to know why the right exists, I refer you to the Declaration of Independence:
​*“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator [not man] with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among [not over] Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed [not the government].”*​
The right to keep and bear arms stems from the very first right - the right to life.  If a man does not have the toolsor ability to defend his life, including every tool that might be used by those who might want to take his life, then his right to life is void and becomes nothing more than a privilege granted by the government. 

Even if the 2nd Amendment is repealed, the right to keep and bear arms stands and is protected from Federal infringement by the 9th and the 10th Amendments.  Even if both the 9th and the 10th Amendments are repealed, the right to keep and bear arms will exist.  

In fact, every human being on earth has the right to keep and bear arms.  It is a right of the Chinese.  It is the right of the Uyghurs.  It is the right of the North Koreans.  And it is the right of every American.  Governments can, by force, infringe on the right and use the force of their own weapons to compel compliance, but they can never take the right.


----------



## woodwork201

BLUE COLLAR said:


> I invoke the typo defense that you used earlier in this thread.  However, repeating the same mistake three times in the span of less than two dozen words is not a typo.  Rather, it signifies an ignorance.
> 
> In Post #590 you pronounced this thread to be done, but here you are again.  You are such a fucking liar.


Who's paying you to be here?


----------



## M14 Shooter

woodwork201 said:


> Who's paying you to be here?


Someone who is not getting their money's worth.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

woodwork201 said:


> The prefatory clause gives a reason why the government cannot infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, not why the right exists. It says nothing at all about why the right exists. If you want to know why the right exists, I refer you to the Declaration of Independence:


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

2aguy said:


> You made a quote and said  it came from the Heller decision....that was a lie.  You named the Heller decision and then put quotes around a paragraph.....that is a lie.....
> 
> *However, your natural right is not unlimited. That fact is enumerated in Heller vs. DC:
> 
> "The Second Amendment right is not unlimited. We do not cast doubt on concealed-weapons prohibitions, laws barring possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, laws barring firearms in sensitive places like schools and government buildings, and laws imposing conditions on commercial sale of arms. Also, the sorts of weapons protected are the sorts of small arms that were lawfully possessed at home at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification, not those most useful in military service today, so “M-16 rifles and the like” may be banned."*


I have to confess that I trusted a source outside the actual Heller Decision.  My review of Scalia's Opinion finds much of what was stated in the aforementioned source to be a part of the Opinion - but not in the structure/order in which I presented it. 

You had every right to have reacted as you did.

I am content to reduce what I argued to: "The Second Amendment right is not unlimited", along with the numerous examples later enumerated in Scalia's Opinion.


----------



## 2aguy

BLUE COLLAR said:


> I have to confess that I trusted a source outside the actual Heller Decision.  My review of Scalia's Opinion finds much of what was stated in the aforementioned source to be a part of the Opinion - but not in the structure/order in which I presented it.
> 
> You had every right to have reacted as you did.
> 
> I am content to reduce what I argued to: "The Second Amendment right is not unlimited", along with the numerous examples later enumerated in Scalia's Opinion.



Just curious…. What was your source?  Was it a lower court?


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

woodwork201 said:


> You've really backed off; now you're down to only that the right is not unlimited.


Yes, and such is an important detail.


woodwork201 said:


> Maybe you're right; perhaps there are limits to the natural right.  I disagree but let's just pretend.  The 2nd Amendment says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  So there is absolutely a limit on the authority of government to codify any limits to the right to keep and bear arms.


Let's just say that contradictions are at play.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

2aguy said:


> Just curious…. What was your source?  Was it a lower court?


No, it was a piece written by law professor.  I don't have it handy but in return for your civility in your question will be happy to unearth it and share it.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

woodwork201 said:


> Who's paying you to be here?


Surely you jest.


----------



## BackAgain

BLUE COLLAR said:


> Surely you jest.


Not that you’re worth it.


----------



## 2aguy

BLUE COLLAR said:


> No, it was a piece written by law professor.  I don't have it handy but in return for your civility in your question will be happy to unearth it and share it.



Thanks, but not necessary.  I was just curious….a few of the lower courts of appeal are simply ignoring Heller or making things up about the ruling.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

woodwork201 said:


> No, I haven't shut out the prefatory clause.  I do suggest any of the free online reading comprehension courses you can find using your favorite search engine - both for understanding my post and the text of the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> *The prefatory clause gives a reason why the government cannot infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, not why the right exists.  It says nothing at all about why the right exists.*  If you want to know why the right exists, I refer you to the Declaration of Independence:
> ​*“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator [not man] with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among [not over] Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed [not the government].”*​
> The right to keep and bear arms stems from the very first right - the right to life.  If a man does not have the toolsor ability to defend his life, including every tool that might be used by those who might want to take his life, then his right to life is void and becomes nothing more than a privilege granted by the government.
> 
> Even if the 2nd Amendment is repealed, the right to keep and bear arms stands and is protected from Federal infringement by the 9th and the 10th Amendments.  Even if both the 9th and the 10th Amendments are repealed, the right to keep and bear arms will exist.
> 
> In fact, every human being on earth has the right to keep and bear arms.  It is a right of the Chinese.  It is the right of the Uyghurs.  It is the right of the North Koreans.  And it is the right of every American.  Governments can, by force, infringe on the right and use the force of their own weapons to compel compliance, but they can never take the right.


I don't believe I've ever contested the natural right to which you refer.  I simply reject that it is absolute.

As to what I bolded in blue, I also don't believe that I've ever considered the prefatory from the opposite direction.  I'll have to give it consideration.

Regardless of having been humbled by my quoting error and finding some merit in several of your points, my basic sentiment remains in place.  As indicated in my opening line (above), I have no use for most anything that claims to be absolute.  Such notions are generally illogical.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

BLUE COLLAR said:


> I don't believe I've ever contested the natural right to which you refer. I simply reject that it is absolute.



Now you agree the right existed before the Constitution?


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Now you agree the right existed before the Constitution?


I've stated that position many times on this thread.  However, as I've also said many times, I do not believe that said right is unlimited.  I subscribe to the notion that my rights end where yours begin, and of course, vice versa.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

2aguy said:


> Thanks, but not necessary.  I was just curious….a few of the lower courts of appeal are simply ignoring Heller or making things up about the ruling.


Well, I dug through my history and found one of the sources:








						District of Columbia v. Heller:  Scalia’s Majority Opinion | National Review
					

Here’s a quick (and, given its 64 pages, necessarily highly selective) summary of Justice Scalia’s opinion for a 5-member majority in District of Columbia v. Heller, invalidating D.C.’s handgun ban…




					www.nationalreview.com
				




Since you've let me off the hook, I'll spare searching for the other which was composed by a law professor.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

BackAgain said:


> Not that you’re worth it.


How's Gdoane?


----------



## BackAgain

BLUE COLLAR said:


> How's Gdoane?


Ask him.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

BackAgain said:


> Ask him.


I will, first chance that I get.


----------



## BackAgain

BLUE COLLAR said:


> I will, first chance that I get.


Have a blast.


----------



## Deplorable Yankee




----------



## BLUE COLLAR

Deplorable Yankee said:


> View attachment 661157View attachment 661158


Despite all the public quibbling over the Second Amendment, a few realities are sustained.

To the chagrin of some, the Heller Decision confirmed the natural and ancient right to self-defense, to include the right to possess and bear arms outside of militia service.

To the chagrin of others, the right to possess and bear arms is not unlimited.  The aforementioned reality is clearly stated in Alito's Heller Opinion, and further, the Senate, by their recent action, has confirmed its conviction in same.

We would do well to observe the common sense in both of the above points of view, and to ignore _my way or the highway_ voices that bark from the extremes.


----------



## woodwork201

BLUE COLLAR said:


> Despite all the public quibbling over the Second Amendment, a few realities are sustained.
> 
> To the chagrin of some, the Heller Decision confirmed the natural and ancient right to self-defense, to include the right to possess and bear arms outside of militia service.
> 
> To the chagrin of others, the right to possess and bear arms is not unlimited.  The aforementioned reality is clearly stated in Alito's Heller Opinion, and further, the Senate, by their recent action, has confirmed its conviction in same.
> 
> We would do well to observe the common sense in both of the above points of view, and to ignore _my way or the highway_ voices that bark from the extremes.


What the government can get away with because of the force of their guns and prisons, in spite of and intentionally, explicitly, ignoring the Constitution, and what the Constitution actually allows, are very often two different things.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

woodwork201 said:


> What the government can get away with because of the force of their guns and prisons, in spite of and intentionally, explicitly, ignoring the Constitution, and what the Constitution actually allows, are very often two different things.


I understand your concern for both government abuse of power and their failures to prosecute.  

We are seeing an example in the failure of the Justice Department (led by a Biden Appointee) to prosecute people in high places for their roles in the Jan 6 assault on the rule of law.

However, the dynamic in your complaint is a little like the wisdom that guns don't kill, people do.  Who wields the law? People do.  It is upon us to elect better leadership.  As it is, we had four years of a dishonest ego maniac which led to the election of someone who is past his prime.


----------



## woodwork201

BLUE COLLAR said:


> I understand your concern for both government abuse of power and their failures to prosecute.
> 
> We are seeing an example in the failure of the Justice Department (led by a Biden Appointee) to prosecute people in high places for their roles in the Jan 6 assault on the rule of law.
> 
> However, the dynamic in your complaint is a little like the wisdom that guns don't kill, people do.  Who wields the law? People do.  It is upon us to elect better leadership.  As it is, we had four years of a dishonest ego maniac which led to the election of someone who is past his prime.



Your view still seems centered around your statement that we should avoid "my way or the highway" comments.  It seems you think that common sense compromise is the right way to go.  What you don't seem to understand is that the gun controllers come to the table with nothing and we come to the table with "shall not be infringed". 

The only thing the gun controllers can offer us is to infringe more or to infringe less.  My-way-or-the-highway says zero infringement - as in the Constitution.  In order for us to compromise, we give away liberty for nothing in return; that's not compromise.  

When we give away liberty, we accept that the government has the power to violate the Constitution at will.  As I have said many, many, times: if you accept that the government can operate outside the Constitution in any single thing, then you must accept that they can violate the Constitution in any thing they choose.  There's no in between; there's no compromise.  To defend the government's violations when it is something you support ethically denies you the right to challenge when it is something to which you object.

No; it is not my way or  the highway. That is for authoritarians who hate the limitations of the Constitution as much as do the most extreme socialists on the left - there are anti-constitutional authoritarians on both sides of the aisle.   For me, though, it's the Constitution way or the highway.


----------



## woodwork201

BLUE COLLAR said:


> Who wields the law? People do.  It is upon us to elect better leadership.


I thought you were American - as in the United States of America.  I must have been mistaken.  Apparently, you must live in a democratic republic somewhere else where, even if indirectly through their elected representatives (why do you call them leadership?), the majority rules where, on the vote of the majority, there can be slavery, churches banned, government agents in every press office, and the right to keep and bear arms is infringed freely.

I, on the other hand, live in a constitutional republic.  The commonality is that you and I have elected representatives (not leaders) but in my America, the United States of America, the Constitution is designed, specifically and explicitly, to ensure the protection of rights for the minority even if the majority votes to enslave them, or to ban churches, or to require government agents in every press office, or to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

woodwork201 said:


> I thought you were American - as in the United States of America.  I must have been mistaken.  Apparently, you must live in a democratic republic somewhere else where, even if indirectly through their elected representatives (why do you call them leadership?), the majority rules where, on the vote of the majority, there can be slavery, churches banned, government agents in every press office, and the right to keep and bear arms is infringed freely.
> 
> I, on the other hand, live in a constitutional republic.  The commonality is that you and I have elected representatives (not leaders) but in my America, the United States of America, the Constitution is designed, specifically and explicitly, to ensure the protection of rights for the minority even if the majority votes to enslave them, or to ban churches, or to require government agents in every press office, or to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms


We have elected representatives to do what, hang the VP for keeping his oath of office?


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

woodwork201 said:


> Your view still seems centered around your statement that we should avoid "my way or the highway" comments.  It seems you think that common sense compromise is the right way to go.  What you don't seem to understand is that the gun controllers come to the table with nothing and we come to the table with "shall not be infringed".
> 
> The only thing the gun controllers can offer us is to infringe more or to infringe less.  My-way-or-the-highway says zero infringement - as in the Constitution.  In order for us to compromise, we give away liberty for nothing in return; that's not compromise.
> 
> When we give away liberty, we accept that the government has the power to violate the Constitution at will.  As I have said many, many, times: if you accept that the government can operate outside the Constitution in any single thing, then you must accept that they can violate the Constitution in any thing they choose.  There's no in between; there's no compromise.  To defend the government's violations when it is something you support ethically denies you the right to challenge when it is something to which you object.
> 
> No; it is not my way or  the highway. That is for authoritarians who hate the limitations of the Constitution as much as do the most extreme socialists on the left - there are anti-constitutional authoritarians on both sides of the aisle.   For me, though, it's the Constitution way or the highway.


Sorry the Padre Game is about to start.  For now, I'll just give a short answer to your opening paragraph.

If you have a problem with "shall not infringed", take it up with the Conservative Justice who qualified your right not to be unlimited.


----------



## woodwork201

BLUE COLLAR said:


> We have elected representatives to do what, hang the VP for keeping his oath of office?


Ahhh.  The TDS finally shows through.  It always comes out eventually.

Since you've obviously run out of arguments, legal and logical, to debate gun control, you turn to needing counseling on your TDS.  I'm happy to oblige you if we don't carry it too far in this thread and the mods lock it or delete the posts for being off-topic.  Feel free to start or join any of a thousand threads where TDS sufferers come for counseling.

For your counseling session today, just keep in mind that no Representatives attempted to  hang Pence and the gallows that the protesters had was not capable of supporting a body and was purely symbolic.  There were those who were calling for violence against Pence - those worked into a frenzy by the FBI and their operatives such as Ray Epps.  Hopefully all of those are in jail and spend a long time in prison.

But something to think about before our next session, please consider these other symbolic attacks and understand that symbolism happens on both sides.  How do these make you feel?


----------



## woodwork201

BLUE COLLAR said:


> Sorry the Padre Game is about to start.  For now, I'll just give a short answer to your opening paragraph.
> 
> If you have a problem with "shall not infringed", take it up with the Conservative Justice who qualified your right not to be unlimited.


I  understand that you're not interested in the actual Constitution.  Remember when/if Roe is overturned next week that whatever the majority of the Justices say is clearly, by your standard, the original intent and must be accepted.  Whatever you do, don't read the third paragraph in the post you quoted.  It will make your head explode because you can't argue against it with reason or law.

After all your criticism of grammar it turns out that you aren't capable of reading the text of the Constitution and other periodic documents and making your own conclusion; in the end you, like all the other lefties who come in here, are mindless robots parroting the bullet points of the socialist left.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

woodwork201 said:


> Your view still seems centered around your statement that we should avoid "my way or the highway" comments.  It seems you think that common sense compromise is the right way to go.  What you don't seem to understand is that the gun controllers come to the table with nothing and we come to the table with "shall not be infringed".


Your antagonist come to the table with _the right to bear arms is not unlimited, _a fact that you conveniently ignore.  


woodwork201 said:


> The only thing the gun controllers can offer us is to infringe more or to infringe less.  My-way-or-the-highway says zero infringement - as in the Constitution.  In order for us to compromise, we give away liberty for nothing in return; that's not compromise.
> 
> When we give away liberty, we accept that the government has the power to violate the Constitution at will.  As I have said many, many, times: if you accept that the government can operate outside the Constitution in any single thing, then you must accept that they can violate the Constitution in any thing they choose.  There's no in between; there's no compromise.  To defend the government's violations when it is something you support ethically denies you the right to challenge when it is something to which you object.
> 
> No; it is not my way or the highway. That is for authoritarians who hate the limitations of the Constitution as much as do the most extreme socialists on the left - there are anti-constitutional authoritarians on both sides of the aisle.   For me, though, it's the Constitution way or the highway.


You give away some parts of your liberties when you choose to be a part of a populated community called civilization. Your rights stop where mine begin, and vice versa.  An inability to appreciate that unavoidable compromise is the mark of a provincial mind.


----------



## woodwork201

BLUE COLLAR said:


> Your antagonist come to the table with _the right to bear arms is not unlimited, _a fact that you conveniently ignore.
> 
> You give away some parts of your liberties when you choose to be a part of a populated community called civilization. Your rights stop where mine begin, and vice versa.  An inability to appreciate that unavoidable compromise is the mark of a provincial mind.


If the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited, please tell where is the exception to "shall not be infringed".  That Scalia said it is so does not make it so. 

You haven't mentioned your view on the right of mothers to have their unborn babies ripped into pieces, torn limb from limb, while still in their mother's womb but I assume you support that right.  So if Roe gets overturned next week, will you take the word of the Court just because they said so?

As I said, you're incapable of justifying your views based on your own reading of the documents and your own application of logic and reason.  You can only parrot the views of others.  Using the views of others to help you understand and create your own opinion is one thing but getting your opinion from others really does show that you're not capable of thought of your own.  If you think Scalia is right about limits to the 2nd Amendment, quote where in the Constitution those limits are stated.  Use your own mind, your own reading and then, if you which, back it up with Scalia.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

woodwork201 said:


> Ahhh.  The TDS finally shows through.  It always comes out eventually.


Thank you Doctor Woody.


woodwork201 said:


> Since you've obviously run out of arguments, legal and logical, to debate gun control, you turn to needing counseling on your TDS.  I'm happy to oblige you if we don't carry it too far in this thread and the mods lock it or delete the posts for being off-topic.  Feel free to start or join any of a thousand threads where TDS sufferers come for counseling.
> 
> For your counseling session today, just keep in mind that no Representatives attempted to  hang Pence and the gallows that the protesters had was not capable of supporting a body and was purely symbolic.  There were those who were calling for violence against Pence - those worked into a frenzy by the FBI and their operatives such as Ray Epps.  Hopefully all of those are in jail and spend a long time in prison.
> 
> But something to think about before our next session, please consider these other symbolic attacks and understand that symbolism happens on both sides.  How do these make you feel?


I haven't run out.  Please note,_ the right to bear arms is not unlimited._


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

woodwork201 said:


> I understand that you're not interested in the actual Constitution.  Remember when/if Roe is overturned next week that whatever the majority of the Justices say is clearly, by your standard, the original intent and must be accepted.  Whatever you do, don't read the third paragraph in the post you quoted.  It will make your head explode because you can't argue against it with reason or law.
> 
> After all your criticism of grammar it turns out that you aren't capable of reading the text of the Constitution and other periodic documents and making your own conclusion; in the end you, like all the other lefties who come in here, are mindless robots parroting the bullet points of the socialist left.


Sorry, but I've drawn many conclusions, among them that you ignore Scalia's Position that your rights are not unlimited.

Keep shoveling the bullshit with your rambling opinions of me.  I'm not impressed.


----------



## woodwork201

BLUE COLLAR said:


> Your antagonist come to the table with _the right to bear arms is not unlimited, _a fact that you conveniently ignore.
> 
> You give away some parts of your liberties when you choose to be a part of a populated community called civilization. Your rights stop where mine begin, and vice versa.  An inability to appreciate that unavoidable compromise is the mark of a provincial mind.


Also your argument about community is correct.  Our forefathers surrendered some rights in order to create a federal government.  I liken it to a condition on a property title.  Their agreement goes with the land and we're all bound by it.  Immigrants who come later are bound by it since they choose to come into our nation with those laws and rules already in place.

The agreement between the people to create the government is documented in the Constitution.  That our forefathers agreed to surrender some rights does not imply that they accept the surrender of all rights and all conditions.  The government was created with a limited set of powers and they cannot, on their own, not by Congress or by the Courts, expand that set of powers.  To do so is purely tyranny.

From the Declaration of Independence:

*That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,*​
The Constitution, as amended, is the absolute limit of the powers to which the governed consented.  If you want to change that, change the Constitution.


----------



## woodwork201

BLUE COLLAR said:


> Sorry, but I've drawn many conclusions, among them that you ignore Scalia's Position that your rights are not unlimited.
> 
> Keep shoveling the bullshit with your rambling opinions of me.  I'm not impressed.



I don't ignore Scalia's claim.  I reject it.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

woodwork201 said:


> If the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited, please tell where is the exception to "shall not be infringed".  That Scalia said it is so does not make it so.
> 
> You haven't mentioned your view on the right of mothers to have their unborn babies ripped into pieces, torn limb from limb, while still in their mother's womb but I assume you support that right.  So if Roe gets overturned next week, will you take the word of the Court just because they said so?
> 
> As I said, you're incapable of justifying your views based on your own reading of the documents and your own application of logic and reason.  You can only parrot the views of others.  Using the views of others to help you understand and create your own opinion is one thing but getting your opinion from others really does show that you're not capable of thought of your own.  If you think Scalia is right about limits to the 2nd Amendment, quote where in the Constitution those limits are stated.  Use your own mind, your own reading and then, if you which, back it up with Scalia.


Give up with the "shall not be infringed."  This country and it's history are riddled with infringements to your fairytale.  Here's a challenge for you, bring a rifle to California, lock and load, and parade the streets.  Let me know how fast your ass was tossed in jail.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

woodwork201 said:


> I don't ignore Scalia's claim.  I reject it.


You ignore it in answering me - but I accept the distinction that you made.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

woodwork201 said:


> Also your argument about community is correct.  Our forefathers surrendered some rights in order to create a federal government.  I liken it to a condition on a property title.  Their agreement goes with the land and we're all bound by it.  Immigrants who come later are bound by it since they choose to come into our nation with those laws and rules already in place.
> 
> The agreement between the people to create the government is documented in the Constitution.  That our forefathers agreed to surrender some rights does not imply that they accept the surrender of all rights and all conditions.  The government was created with a limited set of powers and they cannot, on their own, not by Congress or by the Courts, expand that set of powers.  To do so is purely tyranny.
> 
> From the Declaration of Independence:
> 
> *That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,*​
> The Constitution, as amended, is the absolute limit of the powers to which the governed consented.  If you want to change that, change the Constitution.


Ah good, some common ground.

As regards land and title, I have long held the opinion that if you take a title search back far enough, almost all of them find their way to an original theft.


----------



## woodwork201

BLUE COLLAR said:


> Give up with the "shall not be infringed."  This country and it's history are riddled with infringements to your fairytale.  Here's a challenge for you, bring a rifle to California, lock and load, and parade the streets.  Let me know how fast your ass was tossed in jail.


 Now you're talking about the power of tyranny.  That the police have more guns and people and can force their will on me does not make their actions constitutional.

Are you suggesting George Floyd was legally killed?  Since the police had the power to kill him and did so then it must have been OK and must reflect what's allowed in the Constitution, right?

If you do not accept "shall not be infringed" then you must accept that the Constitution places no limits or boundaries on the power of Government and is nothing more than a list of ideas or suggestions.  Either we demand that the government follow the Constitution or we do not.  If we demand it then we demand it even when we don't like the outcome.  As any legitimate conservative would say, "I may hate what you're saying but I'll fight to the death to defend your right to say it".  Even if you disagree with the outcome, even if you wish all guns could be banned, you must either demand that the government follow the Constitution or accept total tyranny.  

If you want to change "shall not be infringed" then change the Constitution.  This is for the sake of your family, your children, and the generations to follow.  Do you want them living in a tyrannical, authoritarian, future or do you want them to live in a place where government power is limited and their rights are protected from government abuse?


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

woodwork201 said:


> If the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited, please tell where is the exception to "shall not be infringed".  That Scalia said it is so does not make it so.


I told you, bring your rifle to California, parade with it and see what infringement it renders.  Hell, you could get a chance to test your theory of unlimited rights with the Supreme Court.  Do it!


woodwork201 said:


> You haven't mentioned your view on the right of mothers to have their unborn babies ripped into pieces, torn limb from limb, while still in their mother's womb but I assume you support that right.  So if Roe gets overturned next week, will you take the word of the Court just because they said so?


Off topic, but I'll comment that I do not condone unlimited abortion rights.  Neither do I subscribe to forcing a rape victim to give birth to the product of being raped.


woodwork201 said:


> As I said, you're incapable of justifying your views based on your own reading of the documents and your own application of logic and reason.  You can only parrot the views of others.  Using the views of others to help you understand and create your own opinion is one thing but getting your opinion from others really does show that you're not capable of thought of your own.  If you think Scalia is right about limits to the 2nd Amendment, quote where in the Constitution those limits are stated.  Use your own mind, your own reading and then, if you which, back it up with Scalia.


Okay, you are off topic again.  I'm not the topic.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

woodwork201 said:


> Now you're talking about the power of tyranny.  That the police have more guns and people and can force their will on me does not make their actions constitutional.
> 
> Are you suggesting George Floyd was legally killed?  Since the police had the power to kill him and did so then it must have been OK and must reflect what's allowed in the Constitution, right?


No, I do not suggest what you ask.  Hence, your deductions are fucked.


woodwork201 said:


> If you do not accept "shall not be infringed" then you must accept that the Constitution places no limits or boundaries on the power of Government and is nothing more than a list of ideas or suggestions.  Either we demand that the government follow the Constitution or we do not.  If we demand it then we demand it even when we don't like the outcome.  As any legitimate conservative would say, "I may hate what you're saying but I'll fight to the death to defend your right to say it".  Even if you disagree with the outcome, even if you wish all guns could be banned, you must either demand that the government follow the Constitution or accept total tyranny.
> 
> If you want to change "shall not be infringed" then change the Constitution.  This is for the sake of your family, your children, and the generations to follow.  Do you want them living in a tyrannical, authoritarian, future or do you want them to live in a place where government power is limited and their rights are protected from government abuse?


I don't need to change the Constitution.  Perhaps you should go to court and change the law.

It is a given that if you give too much power to the police, they will abuse you.  It is also given that if you allow the police too little power, the criminals will abuse you.


----------



## woodwork201

BLUE COLLAR said:


> I told you, bring your rifle to California, parade with it and see what infringement it renders.  Hell, you could get a chance to test your theory of unlimited rights with the Supreme Court.  Do it!


Once again, that the government can force compliance to an unconstitutional law by the use of force, guns, prison, does not make it constitutional.  We're talking about constitutionality, not what tyrants can do. 

You've clearly run out of legal or logical arguments on the right to keep and bear arms and have devolved into support of tyranny and authoritarianism. If you support tyranny, that's up to you; I do not.


----------



## woodwork201

BLUE COLLAR said:


> No, I do not suggest what you ask.  Hence, your deductions are fucked.
> 
> I don't need to change the Constitution.  Perhaps you should go to court and change the law.
> 
> It is a given that if you give too much power to the police, they will abuse you.  It is also given that if you allow the police too little power, the criminals will abuse you.


Well, that's a lie.  You clearly accept unconstitutional behavior by the Government.  You've been defending it for 30+ pages here.  Your only defense of the infringements on the right to keep and bear arms is that government can shoot you for failure to comply.  It is not my deductions about what you've said; it's what you've said.  

If you put a pan of water on a fire for long enough, it will boil.  If you put a pan of water on a fire for too short of time, it won't boil.  What does this or your police statement have to do with infringing on the right to keep and bear arms?


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

woodwork201 said:


> Well, that's a lie.  You clearly accept unconstitutional behavior by the Government.  You've been defending it for 30+ pages here.  Your only defense of the infringements on the right to keep and bear arms is that government can shoot you for failure to comply.  It is not my deductions about what you've said; it's what you've said.


I've given honest perspectives on the 2ndA, it's meaning and purpose when read with proper accord to English Grammar, the opinion in Heller vs. DC that gun rights are not infinite, the fact that current law does infringe, and has done so throughout our history.

That some people are rubbed wrong by my positions does not make lies of said positions.  That charge is a fallacious attempt to make the conversation about me.

Here's a suggestion, employ fewer personal pronouns in making arguments.



woodwork201 said:


> If you put a pan of water on a fire for long enough, it will boil.  If you put a pan of water on a fire for too short of time, it won't boil.  What does this or your police statement have to do with infringing on the right to keep and bear arms?


The above analogy strikes me as off target.

Maintaining a balance in civilization requires the need to observe both the rights of the individual and the civility of our co-existence.

The question of too much, or too little, police power (government power) reflects perfectly on the differences of two camps: one that wishes, and believes, that said right is without limits.; the other view being that all rights must observe the need of balance in a populated setting.  Again, one person's rights end where the rights of others begin - and vice-versa.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

woodwork201 said:


> Once again, that the government can force compliance to an unconstitutional law by the use of force, guns, prison, does not make it constitutional.  We're talking about constitutionality, not what tyrants can do.
> 
> You've clearly run out of legal or logical arguments on the right to keep and bear arms and have devolved into support of tyranny and authoritarianism. If you support tyranny, that's up to you; I do not.


Please stop with the opinions of me.  It's a fucking bore.


----------



## flan327

Weatherman2020 said:


> Will you just put a big sign on your front door saying
> 
> *THIS HOUSE HAS NO GUNS FOR SELF PROTECTION*
> 
> and shutup?


No 

Go away 
I grew up never seeing a gun
I don’t know if I could take another human life


----------



## flan327

BLUE COLLAR said:


> Please stop with the opinions of me.  It's a fucking bore.


LOLOLOLOL


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

flan327 said:


> No
> 
> Go away
> I grew up never seeing a gun
> I don’t know if I could take another human life


 "I was present at a Massacre of three hundred Indians mostly women and children… It was a horrable scene and I would not let my Company fire."  Captain Silas Soul wrote these words in a letter to his mother describing his conduct at the Sand Creek Massacre (Nov 29, 1964).

Most animals resist killing other animals within their species.  I don't think the dynamic is as true amongst humans as the "thinking species" is more likely to be swayed away from their nature.  After all, military training usually includes a dehumanization of the enemy.  Still, it's a good guess that a pertinent number of soldiers in combat can't pull the trigger to save their life.


----------



## Weatherman2020

flan327 said:


> No
> 
> Go away
> I grew up never seeing a gun
> I don’t know if I could take another human life


Good for you. Now go put your hair in a bun, grab your man purse, and go to your hangout at Starbucks with your laptop


----------



## Captain Caveman

woodwork201 said:


> I thought you were American - as in the United States of America.  I must have been mistaken.  Apparently, you must live in a democratic republic somewhere else where, even if indirectly through their elected representatives (why do you call them leadership?), the majority rules where, on the vote of the majority, there can be slavery, churches banned, government agents in every press office, and the right to keep and bear arms is infringed freely.
> 
> I, on the other hand, live in a constitutional republic.  The commonality is that you and I have elected representatives (not leaders) but in my America, the United States of America, the Constitution is designed, specifically and explicitly, to ensure the protection of rights for the minority even if the majority votes to enslave them, or to ban churches, or to require government agents in every press office, or to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.


Unfortunately, the founding fathers were very naive with their Right to Bear Arms intentions. They didn't bank on the the lack of brain power of future generations. What a cluster fuck the 2'nd Amendment has turned out to be. It's like the Right Wing want banned abortions to have more kids in schools to gun down.


----------



## Weatherman2020

Captain Caveman said:


> Unfortunately, the founding fathers were very naive with their Right to Bear Arms intentions. They didn't bank on the the lack of brain power of future generations. What a cluster fuck the 2'nd Amendment has turned out to be. It's like the Right Wing want banned abortions to have more kids in schools to gun down.


Yeah. Who woulda thunk citizens hadn’t already capped Democrats for releasing over a hundred thousand violent felons from prison early the last 2 years?


----------



## Captain Caveman

Weatherman2020 said:


> Yeah. Who woulda thunk citizens hadn’t already capped Democrats for releasing over a hundred thousand violent felons from prison early the last 2 years?


Does the releasing of felons early stop under a Republican President? Is there a link giving this data, seems interesting.


----------



## Weatherman2020

Captain Caveman said:


> Does the releasing of felons early stop under a Republican President? Is there a link giving this data, seems interesting.


Not my job to educate every Leftard. Follow me if you wish to learn more about current and historical world events.


----------



## Captain Caveman

Weatherman2020 said:


> Not my job to educate every Leftard. Follow me if you wish to learn more about current and historical world events.


I just like to see both sides of the coin before coming to a conclusion.


----------



## Weatherman2020

Captain Caveman said:


> I just like to see both sides of the coin before coming to a conclusion.


Over a hundred thousand violent felons were released early in the past 2 years or they weren’t. Google is your friend.


----------



## Vrenn

BLUE COLLAR said:


> "I was present at a Massacre of three hundred Indians mostly women and children… It was a horrable scene and I would not let my Company fire."  Captain Silas Soul wrote these words in a letter to his mother describing his conduct at the Sand Creek Massacre (Nov 29, 1964).



Date Correction:  1864



BLUE COLLAR said:


> Most animals resist killing other animals within their species.  I don't think the dynamic is as true amongst humans as the "thinking species" is more likely to be swayed away from their nature.  After all, military training usually includes a dehumanization of the enemy.  Still, it's a good guess that a pertinent number of soldiers in combat can't pull the trigger to save their life.


----------



## Weatherman2020

Vrenn said:


> Date Correction:  1864


Very rare for an armed person to be a victim of murder. Very common to have mass murderers stopped by a good guy with a gun.


----------



## Captain Caveman

Weatherman2020 said:


> Over a hundred thousand violent felons were released early in the past 2 years or they weren’t. Google is your friend.


And what about the 2 years preceding those


----------



## Weatherman2020

Captain Caveman said:


> And what about the 2 years preceding those


Common. 
And 86% of those on parole will be arrested within the next 5 years. And that’s just the ones caught.


----------



## Captain Caveman

Weatherman2020 said:


> Common.
> And 86% of those on parole will be arrested within the next 5 years. And that’s just the ones caught.


Thankfully, I was born and brought up in the UK. We were brought up to use guns for leisure and sport, not for self defence and wander around shops with loaded guns. Same with crime. If your upbringing was around crime, then crime doesn't bother you.

It's trying to break the circle of deprivation, that's where governments step in with their policies. They need to sort out the poor neighborhoods, education, and opportunities for people


----------



## miketx

skews13 said:


> Laws about freedom of speech don’t just shift when it comes to content and context, they’re also constantly updated to address something else: technology. Radio. Movies. Television. The internet. Even comic books. All have sparked changes in what is permitted and how speech is regulated. But somehow, we pretend that guns are different; that words written when the most deadly weapon required a ramrod and black powder mean that we can’t make adjustments for a semi-automatic rifle and a 30-round clip.
> 
> The truth is that guns _are _different. Because the right to bear arms is _a lesser right_. A right that was never intended to exist at all.
> 
> What makes individual gun ownership a lesser right? It’s a right that only exists in the minds of a handful of hard-right Supreme Court justices who happen to be on the court at this moment. Until 2008, no federal court had _ever_ ruled that the Second Amendment included a right to individual gun ownership. It was always understood as it was written: Guns were allowed in individual hands as a means to supply the armed forces.
> 
> Here’s the _Milwaukee Independent_ looking at how Chief Justice Warren Burger discussed the Second Amendment.
> 
> That the Second Amendment exists at all is more an accident of timing than an attempt to put guns in the hands of every American.
> The amendment grew out of a fear that having a standing army would leave the nation open to depredations by an authoritarian leader, or that the nascent democracy would be overthrown by a military junta. To that end, they explicitly inserted the Second Amendment as an alternative means of providing national defense.
> 
> There were multiple drafts of the Second Amendment. Every one of them includes text explaining that this amendment exists only because it’s needed to provide for the nation’s defense.
> Just a year after the Constitution was ratified, George Washington nudged Congress to create an official U.S. military, but the still-fearful Congress limited that force to just few hundred soldiers and officers. It would be another six years before it was allowed to grow significantly. When war came in 1812 two things were immediately obvious: The number of soldiers then in the official U.S. military were far from enough to defend the nation, and the poorly organized civilian militias for which the Second Amendment was created were an absolute failure when it came to national defense.
> 
> In the next year, the professional military of the United States grew by over 300%. “Second Amendment solutions” were on their way out.
> The Second Amendment is failure. It _never _worked for its intended purposes. It was born from  the understandable fears of a new nation engaged in a radical new scheme. But it was a mistake. It may be the most costly mistake this nation has ever made other than failing to end slavery at the outset.
> 
> The right thing to do would be to recognize that mistake and pass a new amendment that simply ends the Second Amendment, just as the 18th Amendment was repealed by the 21st Amendment in 1933. (Take a drink.)
> 
> Instead, we get statements like this piece of profound ignorance. One that is wrong. Wrong. Wrong again. And then … still wrong.
> 
> 
> Recognizing that an actual repeal of the Second Amendment—while absolutely just—isn’t likely, the next best thing is to simply recognize that the right to individual gun ownership is _a lesser right_, one whose appearance in that useless amendment subjects it to practical constraint.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Second Amendment was a failure from the start, and should have been repealed 200 years ago
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as an unconstrained right. Speech has limits. Religion has limits. Assembly has limits. The idea that any of these things can be completely “free” of government oversight is a pipedream, and everyone from the founders to the...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dailykos.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Individual gun ownership rights are the result of a Supreme Court decision. Specifically Heller v DC
> 
> Just like abortion rights are the result of a Supreme Court decision. Specifically Roe v Wade
> 
> The current court is ready to take away Roe v Wade.
> 
> A future court can do the same with Heller v DC.


Come get us commie


----------



## miketx

Captain Caveman said:


> Thankfully, I was born and brought up in the UK. We were brought up to use guns for leisure and sport, not for self defence and wander around shops with loaded guns. Same with crime. If your upbringing was around crime, then crime doesn't bother you.
> 
> It's trying to break the circle of deprivation, that's where governments step in with their policies. They need to sort out the poor neighborhoods, education, and opportunities for people


Lol, total bs.


----------



## Weatherman2020

Captain Caveman said:


> Thankfully, I was born and brought up in the UK. We were brought up to use guns for leisure and sport, not for self defence and wander around shops with loaded guns. Same with crime. If your upbringing was around crime, then crime doesn't bother you.
> 
> It's trying to break the circle of deprivation, that's where governments step in with their policies. They need to sort out the poor neighborhoods, education, and opportunities for people


And as a result the London murder rate is higher than Leftist anti gun New York.


----------



## Captain Caveman

Weatherman2020 said:


> And as a result the London murder rate is higher than Leftist anti gun New York.


Yes, I believe the uninformed think that.


----------



## Tom Paine 1949

The OP is correct in pointing out that contemporary interpretations of the 2nd Amendment as guaranteeing an almost absolute *individual* right to buy and bear *modern* firearms are in fact really extremely modern and problematic interpretations.

It is true that the 2nd Amendment was the special product of a special time in early American society. It was specifically premised on the assumption that “well regulated militia”  — something now mostly replaced by police forces and the military and no longer existing independently — were absolutely necessary.

The historical development of our country was rather unique in this respect. Alternative  interpretations of the 2nd are possible, and “originalist” interpretations of the 2nd Amendment’s meaning are certainly possible. Furthermore, the “right of the people” is not the same as “the right of every individual.” The history and scope of “incorporation” of the 2nd amendment is another area that may be open to challenge in the states, as traditionally wide discretion in regulating rights to carry were historically allowed.

The the right “to bear arms” does *not* now apply to bazookas and Stinger missiles. They are *extremely* regulated and “afringed” by law. My point is that different Supreme Court rulings (especially if society itself were less divided on this issue) might accept very different interpretations of  the 2nd Amendment. Another interpretation might even limit civilians bearing arms to slow single shot or bolt action weapons.

I am not pushing any specific alternative interpretation; I could live with any if I thought our nation was more mature and less likely to tear itself apart over this and similar political “wedge” issues. I think the 2nd could be usefully amended so that at least registration and “regulation” were specifically encouraged. But for many reasons this will obviously not happen in the foreseeable future.

Meanwhile, we are stuck with a 2nd Amendment wording which was admirable in its original idealism, moving and under certain conditions potentially useful, is also clearly confusing … because it is the product of a very different time:

*“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.”*


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

Weatherman2020 said:


> Very rare for an armed person to be a victim of murder. Very common to have mass murderers stopped by a good guy with a gun.


I have not researched either of your claims, and do not have an opinion on the first sentence.  My general sense is that the second sentence is inaccurate though I know it to be a popular boast.  

However, I can give an example of three armed men who did intervene to slow a massacre.  I'm referring to the infamous My Lai IV Incident in which hundreds of Vietnamese Civilians were slaughtered by American Forces.  Warrant Officer Hugh Thompson landed his helicopter between some of the soldiers and civilians ordering his flight crew to fire on the soldiers if they advanced on the civilians.

For thirty years Thompson was treated as a traitor before finally being decorated as the hero that he was.

What a fucked-up world in which we live.


----------



## Weatherman2020

BLUE COLLAR said:


> I have not researched either of your claims, and do not have an opinion on the first sentence.  My general sense is that the second sentence is inaccurate though I know it to be a popular boast.
> 
> However, I can give an example of three armed men who did intervene to slow a massacre.  I'm referring to the infamous My Lai IV Incident in which hundreds of Vietnamese Civilians were slaughtered by American Forces.  Warrant Officer Hugh Thompson landed his helicopter between some of the soldiers and civilians ordering his flight crew to fire on the soldiers if they advanced on the civilians.
> 
> For thirty years Thompson was treated as a traitor before finally being decorated as the hero that he was.
> 
> What a fucked-up world in which we live.


There’s maybe 3 cases in 50 years of a mass murderer NOT being stopped because he was confronted by a good guy with a gun.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

Captain Caveman said:


> Does the releasing of felons early stop under a Republican President? Is there a link giving this data, seems interesting.


I doubt it. 

Republicans are not likely desirous to increase taxes for new prisons.  

Of course, it's not like we don't already have a lot of people locked up in a whole lot of cells.  Isn't our incarceration rate one of the highest in the world?  Makes you wonder, with all these guns in the public domain, all of the supposed heroic gunmen among us, why is our crime rate so high?


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

Weatherman2020 said:


> There’s maybe 3 cases in 50 years of a mass murderer NOT being stopped because he was confronted by a good guy with a gun.


No offense, but I can't respond to what you wrote because I can't put a precise meaning on what you are saying.  

Can you re-word it?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

BLUE COLLAR said:


> Makes you wonder, with all these guns in the public domain, all of the supposed heroic gunmen among us, why is our crime rate so high?



Makes me wonder, when guns were banned in Chicago, why did we have so much gun crime?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

BLUE COLLAR said:


> I don't believe I've ever contested the natural right to which you refer. I simply reject that it is absolute.



Are you sure you've never contested it?

When I said the following.....

*It exists independent of a militia. Independent of a constitution.*

You said.....

_Well, there we have it, what I bolded big.

Guns are your religion and we should take your instructions from God on faith. What a crock._


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Makes me wonder, when guns were banned in Chicago, why did we have so much gun crime?


Because there were already too many guns in circulation?

Gun violence is the domain of criminals sprinkled with a little friendly fire.  I'm not sure where to fit the suicides.  Regardless, it is the insane proliferation of guns in this country along with the failure to properly regulate sale and security that has assisted criminals in well-arming themselves.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Are you sure you've never contested it?
> 
> When I said the following.....
> 
> *It exists independent of a militia. Independent of a constitution.*
> 
> You said.....
> 
> _Well, there we have it, what I bolded big.
> 
> Guns are your religion and we should take your instructions from God on faith. What a crock._


I can't respond without some context.  
Point me to where this was written, and I'll promise an honest answer.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

Weatherman2020 said:


> Not my job to educate every Leftard. Follow me if you wish to learn more about current and historical world events.


Cease with the dopey name-calling.  It adds nothing to the conversation.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

miketx said:


> Come get us commie


You should send this message to Commie Kim's ass kisser.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> The OP is correct in pointing out that contemporary interpretations of the 2nd Amendment as guaranteeing an almost absolute *individual* right to buy and bear *modern* firearms are in fact really extremely modern and problematic interpretations.
> 
> It is true that the 2nd Amendment was the special product of a special time in early American society. It was specifically premised on the assumption that “well regulated militia”  — something now mostly replaced by police forces and the military and no longer existing independently — were absolutely necessary.
> 
> The historical development of our country was rather unique in this respect. Alternative  interpretations of the 2nd are possible, and “originalist” interpretations of the 2nd Amendment’s meaning are certainly possible. Furthermore, the “right of the people” is not the same as “the right of every individual.” The history and scope of “incorporation” of the 2nd amendment is another area that may be open to challenge in the states, as traditionally wide discretion in regulating rights to carry were historically allowed.
> 
> The the right “to bear arms” does *not* now apply to bazookas and Stinger missiles. They are *extremely* regulated and “afringed” by law. My point is that different Supreme Court rulings (especially if society itself were less divided on this issue) might accept very different interpretations of  the 2nd Amendment. Another interpretation might even limit civilians bearing arms to slow single shot or bolt action weapons.
> 
> I am not pushing any specific alternative interpretation; I could live with any if I thought our nation was more mature and less likely to tear itself apart over this and similar political “wedge” issues. I think the 2nd could be usefully amended so that at least registration and “regulation” were specifically encouraged. But for many reasons this will obviously not happen in the foreseeable future.
> 
> *Meanwhile, we are stuck with a 2nd Amendment wording which was admirable in its original idealism, moving and under certain conditions potentially useful, is also clearly confusing … because it is the product of a very different time:*
> 
> *“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.”*


Well said, particularly your summation which I bolded in red.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

BLUE COLLAR said:


> I can't respond without some context.
> Point me to where this was written, and I'll promise an honest answer.








						The Second Amendment Was A Failure From The Start, And Should Have Been Repealed 200 Years Ago
					

No it isn't.   Furthermore, the term "tied to" is meaningless.  Yes it is, that's what the prefatory clause does, states the reason/purpose for the 2ndA.  Did they not teach grammar where you went to school.   Someone call Betsy and report this travesty.  Using twisted grammar to deny the...



					www.usmessageboard.com


----------



## miketx

BLUE COLLAR said:


> Cease with the dopey name-calling.  It adds nothing to the conversation.


Stop being a commie gun banner. Come get us.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

Toddsterpatriot said:


> The Second Amendment Was A Failure From The Start, And Should Have Been Repealed 200 Years Ago
> 
> 
> No it isn't.   Furthermore, the term "tied to" is meaningless.  Yes it is, that's what the prefatory clause does, states the reason/purpose for the 2ndA.  Did they not teach grammar where you went to school.   Someone call Betsy and report this travesty.  Using twisted grammar to deny the...
> 
> 
> 
> www.usmessageboard.com


Okay, I'll confess I butchered that one.

I was too in a hurry to condemn the faith element.


----------



## Weatherman2020

BLUE COLLAR said:


> Cease with the dopey name-calling.  It adds nothing to the conversation.


Asking people to educate them on the last 50 years of history adds nothing to the discussion either. Commie.


----------



## miketx

Weatherman2020 said:


> Asking people to educate them on the last 50 years of history adds nothing to the discussion either. Commie.


One thing all leftists have in common is that they are all lying ghouls.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

BLUE COLLAR said:


> Okay, I'll confess I butchered that one.
> 
> I was too in a hurry to condemn the faith element.



What faith element?


----------



## CremeBrulee

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Makes me wonder, when guns were banned in Chicago, why did we have so much gun crime?


Bbbbut bbbut it's all those people from somewhere else that are the problem.  Chicago would be "mostly peaceful" if not for Indiana.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

miketx said:


> Stop being a commie gun banner. Come get us.


In good time, your sentiments will become just another turd amongst the rubble of backwards thinking.

Do you remember when the world was flat, when women were raped on pretense of finding the devil's mark, when libertarian nonsense permitted child labor, when women couldn't vote, when black people were chattels and beat like mules?  

Btw, I don't ban guns, I simply propose that we handle them with respect.

As for your childish tough guy act, as one who did his time in hell, I'm not impressed.  Quit showing your ass.


----------



## Weatherman2020

BLUE COLLAR said:


> In good time, your sentiments will become just another turd amongst the rubble of backwards thinking.
> 
> Do you remember when the world was flat, when women were raped on pretense of finding the devil's mark, when libertarian nonsense permitted child labor, when women couldn't vote, when black people were chattels and beat like mules?
> 
> Btw, I don't ban guns, I simply propose that we handle them with respect.
> 
> As for your childish tough guy act, as one who did his time in hell, I'm not impressed.  Quit showing your ass.


I’m so old I remember when women were allowed to actually win in womens sporting events.


----------



## miketx

BLUE COLLAR said:


> In good time, your sentiments will become just another turd amongst the rubble of backwards thinking.
> 
> Do you remember when the world was flat, when women were raped on pretense of finding the devil's mark, when libertarian nonsense permitted child labor, when women couldn't vote, when black people were chattels and beat like mules?
> 
> Btw, I don't ban guns, I simply propose that we handle them with respect.
> 
> As for your childish tough guy act, as one who did his time in hell, I'm not impressed.  Quit showing your ass.


Commie babbling gun banner claims the world is flat and wants to rape women with birth marks.


----------



## 2aguy

Captain Caveman said:


> Unfortunately, the founding fathers were very naive with their Right to Bear Arms intentions. They didn't bank on the the lack of brain power of future generations. What a cluster fuck the 2'nd Amendment has turned out to be. It's like the Right Wing want banned abortions to have more kids in schools to gun down.




Wrong....if the Founders knew that in a 6 year period, from 1939-1945 that you Europeans would slaughter 15 million innocent men, women and children...not collateral from combat actions, but people simply rounded up for murder......they would have written the 2nd Amendment as a mandate....that all homes have an arms room filled with rifles.......

The population of the 13 colonies was about 2.5 million....

You guys murdered 15 million in 6 years, and it only stopped because Americans with guns went over to Europe and stopped it....

We average about 10,000 gun murders a year......the majority of those murdered are not innocent human beings, but criminals engaged in the criminal lifestyle.......of the rest, the majority of those victims are family, and friends of criminals, hit in the crossfire of the criminals...

Over 83 years...from 1939 to 2022.....that would be 830,000 people murdered with guns....the majority of them criminals...

83 years, 830,000

You guys murdered 15 million....in 6 years....

The founders would have demanded guns in everyhome......


----------



## miketx

Captain Caveman said:


> What a cluster fuck the 2'nd Amendment has turned out to be. It's like the Right Wing want banned abortions to have


What a butchering ghoul you must be.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

Toddsterpatriot said:


> What faith element?


Wasn't there a reference to God?

I have no general objection to religion - but I do not appreciate a counterpoint made on merit of what God has supposedly said.  There is a distinct difference between viewing something as common sense, natural right verses something offered as ordained by faith.

Perhaps, I pounced too quickly but at the same time I can produce multiple examples of my subscribing to self-defense, to include the right to bear arms.


----------



## Tom Paine 1949

Only rightwing gun nuts and fools would call a serious opponent like the original poster — a war veteran —  a “ghoul” and “lying commie.”

I’m used to the same treatment. I myself “carry” and have been legally vetted to do so. I also have a semi-automatic rifle and am an ex-member (left in the ‘70s) of the IRA. My views are similar to the older views of that organization, when it was still a pretty uncontroversial sport & hunting organization. Actually I even fought to extend the rights of responsible adults to carry and  defend themselves against criminal violence in the 1980s in NYC.

It’s not helpful to the discussion, and disgusting, but I suppose we thoughtful “leftists” should be proud to be called “ghouls” and “lying commies” … by such ignoramouses.


----------



## 2aguy

BLUE COLLAR said:


> I have not researched either of your claims, and do not have an opinion on the first sentence.  My general sense is that the second sentence is inaccurate though I know it to be a popular boast.
> 
> However, I can give an example of three armed men who did intervene to slow a massacre.  I'm referring to the infamous My Lai IV Incident in which hundreds of Vietnamese Civilians were slaughtered by American Forces.  Warrant Officer Hugh Thompson landed his helicopter between some of the soldiers and civilians ordering his flight crew to fire on the soldiers if they advanced on the civilians.
> 
> For thirty years Thompson was treated as a traitor before finally being decorated as the hero that he was.
> 
> What a fucked-up world in which we live.




The Texas church shooter stopped by the NRA instructor who used his personal AR-15 to shoot and drive off the mass shooter...

The Church shooter who was shot by the armed parishioner......with his .357 semi-automatic pistol

The woman in West Virginia, the same week as the Uvalde shooting, stopped the mass shooter who was armed with an AR-15...she just had a pistol...

You don't hear about the mass public shootings that are stopped by armed citizens....because they stop the mass public shooting...you don't have the body count that you have when the victims are unarmed........

Also.....in this country, anti-gun fanatics have made almost every public space, including schools, theaters, churches, malls, into gun free zones.....which means you limit the amount of times a good guy will have their legal gun with them to stop mass public shooters...

Also, mass public shooters do not target places that allow people to have guns.......so when you make a place a gun free zone, you invite the attack in the first place.

Then....

Deputies: Osceola pastor shot church janitor in self-defense

*According to deputies, Parangan pulled out a handgun and fired multiple shots at Pastor Terry Howell, who took out his own weapon and fired back, striking Parangan.

Howell was not injured, but Parangan was taken to Osceola Regional Medical Center in critical condition.

Deputies said several church employees witnessed the incident and gave similar statements.*
*this Psychiatrist was not an off duty cop.....*

Penn. psychiatric center shooting intended mass killing: DA

The Pennsylvania patient accused of killing his caseworker in a psychiatric center shooting carried dozens of bullets — and he would have likely continued shooting if a doctor didn’t fire back, officials said. 

Richard Plotts, 49, is expected to be charged with murder for allegedly opening fire at Sister Marie Lenahan Wellness Center in Darby Thursday.

After he killed his caseworker, 53-year-old Theresa Hunt, and shot his psychiatrist, Lee Silverman, the wounded doctor fired back, stopping the attack, District Attorney Jack Whelan said in a Friday press conference.

Plotts had 39 more bullets on him. He intended a mass shooting, Whelan said.


----------



## Vrenn

CremeBrulee said:


> Bbbbut bbbut it's all those people from somewhere else that are the problem.  Chicago would be "mostly peaceful" if not for Indiana.



The people might be more peaceful in Indiana but  the weapons that seem to find their way from Indiana to Chicago ain't so friendly.


----------



## miketx

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> Only rightwing gun nuts and fools would call a serious opponent like the original poster — a war veteran —  a “ghoul” and “lying commie.”
> 
> I’m used to the same treatment. I myself “carry” and have been legally vetted to do so. I also have a semi-automatic rifle and am an ex-member (left in the ‘70s) of the IRA. My views are similar to the older views of that organization, when it was still a pretty uncontroversial sport & hunting organization. Actually I even fought to extend the rights of responsible adults to carry and  defend themselves against criminal violence in the 1980s in NYC.
> 
> It’s not helpful to the discussion, and disgusting, but I suppose we thoughtful “leftists” should be proud to be called “ghouls” and “lying commies” … by such ignoramouses.


Commie ghouls are what they are. Come get us.


----------



## miketx

Vrenn said:


> The people might be more peaceful in Indiana but  the weapons that seem to find their way from Indiana to Chicago ain't so friendly.


This is what mental illness looks like.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

2aguy said:


> Wrong....if the Founders knew that in a 6 year period, from 1939-1945 that you Europeans would slaughter 15 million innocent men, women and children...not collateral from combat actions, but people simply rounded up for murder......they would have written the 2nd Amendment as a mandate....that all homes have an arms room filled with rifles.......
> 
> The population of the 13 colonies was about 2.5 million....
> 
> You guys murdered 15 million in 6 years, and it only stopped because Americans with guns went over to Europe and stopped it....
> 
> We average about 10,000 gun murders a year......the majority of those murdered are not innocent human beings, but criminals engaged in the criminal lifestyle.......of the rest, the majority of those victims are family, and friends of criminals, hit in the crossfire of the criminals...
> 
> Over 83 years...from 1939 to 2022.....that would be 830,000 people murdered with guns....the majority of them criminals...
> 
> 83 years, 830,000
> 
> You guys murdered 15 million....in 6 years....
> 
> The founders would have demanded guns in everyhome......


I find legitimacy in numerous of your remarks but suggest that the problem should not be reduced to lesser (or greater) evils.  Whatever the Europeans killed has little to do with whether or not we need more restraint with firearms.

Btw, if we are going to go down that path, how many people died in misguided wars like Vietnam, in the rape of Central America, in the genocide perpetrated on Native Americans? If you want additional examples, look to China's horrible conduct in Tibet and East Turkistan.  And of course, there are the numerous slaughters that have taken place in Africa.  It's who and what we are as a species.

Hell, it's almost enough to make me buy a gun.


----------



## miketx

BLUE COLLAR said:


> Whatever the Europeans killed has little to do with whether or not we need more restraint with firearms.


Lol, the whole point flew over your head.


----------



## 2aguy

BLUE COLLAR said:


> I find legitimacy in numerous of your remarks but suggest that the problem should not be reduced to lesser (or greater) evils.  Whatever the Europeans killed has little to do with whether or not we need more restraint with firearms.
> 
> Btw, if we are going to go down that path, how many people died in misguided wars like Vietnam, in the rape of Central America, in the genocide perpetrated on Native Americans? If you want additional examples, look to China's horrible conduct in Tibet and East Turkistan.  And of course, there are the numerous slaughters that have taken place in Africa.  It's who and what we are as a species.
> 
> Hell, it's almost enough to make me buy a gun.




We don't need restraint on firearms...we need to control our criminal populations in the tiny areas of democrat party controlled cities where they are released, over and over again and where the police have stopped doing their jobs...because of attacks by the democrat party.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

2aguy said:


> The Texas church shooter stopped by the NRA instructor who used his personal AR-15 to shoot and drive off the mass shooter...
> 
> The Church shooter who was shot by the armed parishioner......with his .357 semi-automatic pistol
> 
> The woman in West Virginia, the same week as the Uvalde shooting, stopped the mass shooter who was armed with an AR-15...she just had a pistol...
> 
> You don't hear about the mass public shootings that are stopped by armed citizens....because they stop the mass public shooting...you don't have the body count that you have when the victims are unarmed........
> 
> Also.....in this country, anti-gun fanatics have made almost every public space, including schools, theaters, churches, malls, into gun free zones.....which means you limit the amount of times a good guy will have their legal gun with them to stop mass public shooters...
> 
> Also, mass public shooters do not target places that allow people to have guns.......so when you make a place a gun free zone, you invite the attack in the first place.
> 
> Then....
> 
> Deputies: Osceola pastor shot church janitor in self-defense
> 
> *According to deputies, Parangan pulled out a handgun and fired multiple shots at Pastor Terry Howell, who took out his own weapon and fired back, striking Parangan.
> 
> Howell was not injured, but Parangan was taken to Osceola Regional Medical Center in critical condition.
> 
> Deputies said several church employees witnessed the incident and gave similar statements.*
> *this Psychiatrist was not an off duty cop.....*
> 
> Penn. psychiatric center shooting intended mass killing: DA
> 
> The Pennsylvania patient accused of killing his caseworker in a psychiatric center shooting carried dozens of bullets — and he would have likely continued shooting if a doctor didn’t fire back, officials said.
> 
> Richard Plotts, 49, is expected to be charged with murder for allegedly opening fire at Sister Marie Lenahan Wellness Center in Darby Thursday.
> 
> After he killed his caseworker, 53-year-old Theresa Hunt, and shot his psychiatrist, Lee Silverman, the wounded doctor fired back, stopping the attack, District Attorney Jack Whelan said in a Friday press conference.
> 
> Plotts had 39 more bullets on him. He intended a mass shooting, Whelan said.


You worked hard at this post, but I must protest that a small sample, does not carry the day.  The issue isn't whether some gun owners have stopped some violence.  The issue is whether that undefined positive justifies the carnage arising from the millions and millions of guns circulating in this country.

Oh, and two more words: friendly fire.


----------



## 2aguy

BLUE COLLAR said:


> I find legitimacy in numerous of your remarks but suggest that the problem should not be reduced to lesser (or greater) evils.  Whatever the Europeans killed has little to do with whether or not we need more restraint with firearms.
> 
> Btw, if we are going to go down that path, how many people died in misguided wars like Vietnam, in the rape of Central America, in the genocide perpetrated on Native Americans? If you want additional examples, look to China's horrible conduct in Tibet and East Turkistan.  And of course, there are the numerous slaughters that have taken place in Africa.  It's who and what we are as a species.
> 
> Hell, it's almost enough to make me buy a gun.




There was no genocide against the Indians......they were wiped out by diseases they had no exposure to before the Europeans came here......

Yep...China.....against an unarmed population they murdered 70 million......

Russia.....unarmed people....25 million murdered....

See the pattern here?  

Unarmed populations are murdered by their governments in the millions...while criminal control keeps gun crime down during the periods when government isn't murdering their citizens.


----------



## miketx

BLUE COLLAR said:


> You worked hard at this post, but I must protest that a small sample, does not carry the day.  The issue isn't whether some gun owners have stopped some violence.  The issue is whether that undefined positive justifies the carnage arising from the millions and millions of guns circulating in this country.
> 
> Oh, and two more words: friendly fire.


Come take them, ghoul.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

miketx said:


> Lol, the whole point flew over your head.


Allow me to respond in kind: No, it did not.


----------



## 2aguy

BLUE COLLAR said:


> You worked hard at this post, but I must protest that a small sample, does not carry the day.  The issue isn't whether some gun owners have stopped some violence.  The issue is whether that undefined positive justifies the carnage arising from the millions and millions of guns circulating in this country.
> 
> Oh, and two more words: friendly fire.




The vast majority of gun murder victims are not normal citizens.....they are criminals.......of the rest, the vast majority are those associated with criminals...friends and family.

The locations of these shootings are concentrated in tiny, multi-block areas of democrat party controlled cities...where the democrat party policies of releasing violent criminals and attacking the police,  have allowed gun crime to increase....

You blame the guns....I show you it is the democrat party policies that cause the gun crime...

Can you explain the following....

You think guns increase gun crime........right?

Then explain this...

Over  27 years,  from 1993  to the year 2015, we went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 19.4 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2019 (in 2020 that number is 21.52 million)...guess what happened...

New Concealed Carry Report For 2020: 19.48 Million Permit Holders, 820,000 More Than Last Year despite many states shutting down issuing permits because of the Coronavirus - Crime Prevention Research Center


-- *gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%*

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

*Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.*


This means that access to guns does not create gun crime........


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

BLUE COLLAR said:


> Wasn't there a reference to God?
> 
> I have no general objection to religion - but I do not appreciate a counterpoint made on merit of what God has supposedly said.  There is a distinct difference between viewing something as common sense, natural right verses something offered as ordained by faith.
> 
> Perhaps, I pounced too quickly but at the same time I can produce multiple examples of my subscribing to self-defense, to include the right to bear arms.



*Wasn't there a reference to God?*

I didn't see one.

*but I do not appreciate a counterpoint made on merit of what God has supposedly said. *

Not sure God ever said anything about guns. Let me know if you find a quote.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> I also have a semi-automatic rifle and am an ex-member (left in the ‘70s) of the IRA.



NRA?


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

2aguy said:


> There was no genocide against the Indians......they were wiped out by diseases they had no exposure to before the Europeans came here......
> 
> Yep...China.....against an unarmed population they murdered 70 million......
> 
> Russia.....unarmed people....25 million murdered....
> 
> See the pattern here?
> 
> Unarmed populations are murdered by their governments in the millions...while criminal control keeps gun crime down during the periods when government isn't murdering their citizens.


The fallacy you employ in directing your argument at me is that I do not seek to disarm you.  I seek only to interject an element of common sense to who, where and what manner of firearms are possessed.  

As for Native Americans, many died as you state, others died because we wanted their land and its resources, because we waged war on them, killed them, and herded them onto reservations so that "manifest destiny" could be achieved.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Vrenn said:


> The people might be more peaceful in Indiana but  the weapons that seem to find their way from Indiana to Chicago ain't so friendly.



That's racist!!!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

BLUE COLLAR said:


> The issue is whether that undefined positive justifies the carnage arising from the millions and millions of guns circulating in this country.



Millions of guns aren't causing carnage.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Wasn't there a reference to God?*
> 
> I didn't see one.
> 
> *but I do not appreciate a counterpoint made on merit of what God has supposedly said. *
> 
> Not sure God ever said anything about guns. Let me know if you find a quote.


I won't bother looking as that was not my point.   Further, I can't quote something that exist only in faith claimed by mere mortals.  

I simply reacted to one of those mortals pulling the God Card.


----------



## 2aguy

BLUE COLLAR said:


> The fallacy you employ in directing your argument at me is that I do not seek to disarm you.  I seek only to interject an element of common sense to who, where and what manner of firearms are possessed.
> 
> As for Native Americans, many died as you state, others died because we wanted their land and its resources, because we waged war on them, killed them, and herded them onto reservations so that "manifest destiny" could be achieved.




The majority died from European diseases.....

And they were pushed off land they had taken from other indian tribes........and do you know why they were pushed off?

They didn't have enough guns, and they didn't advance their technology before the Europeans arrived......had they been as technologically developed as the Europeans, they never would have lost this continent.......too much water to cross by the Europeans to take land held at gun point.


----------



## 2aguy

BLUE COLLAR said:


> The fallacy you employ in directing your argument at me is that I do not seek to disarm you.  I seek only to interject an element of common sense to who, where and what manner of firearms are possessed.
> 
> As for Native Americans, many died as you state, others died because we wanted their land and its resources, because we waged war on them, killed them, and herded them onto reservations so that "manifest destiny" could be achieved.




The laws you want erode the Right......and will allow the democrats to keep pushing more and more restrictions that do nothing to stop crime or mass shootings, but will slowly take guns away from normal people...

Can you explain how any of the laws the democrats and you want would have stopped any of the mass public shootings or the crimes in democrat party controlled cities?


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Millions of guns aren't causing carnage.


No, the carnage is by the hand of those with easy access, in part due to a great supply.


----------



## 2aguy

BLUE COLLAR said:


> No, the carnage is by the hand of those with easy access, in part due to a great supply.




It isn't easy access......they have been captured over and over again by the police....with illegal guns.....and instead of being sent away for 10 years.......should be much longer...the democrat party prosecutors drop the gun charges, the democrat party judges release them with no cash bail....and the democrat party politicians remove the gun laws that focus on actual criminals...while increasing the penalties on normal gun owners...


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

2aguy said:


> We don't need restraint on firearms...we need to control our criminal populations in the tiny areas of democrat party controlled cities where they are released, over and over again and where the police have stopped doing their jobs...because of attacks by the democrat party.


So, you are suggesting that we should raise taxes and build more prisons?  Don't we already have more per capita incarcerations than any other country?  

Blaming the Democratic Party is bullshit.  The other side has control of the country half of the time.


----------



## 2aguy

BLUE COLLAR said:


> So, you are suggesting that we should raise taxes and build more prisons?  Don't we already have more per capita incarcerations than any other country?
> 
> Blaming the Democratic Party is bullshit.  The other side has control of the country half of the time.




How do the prisons protect us if the democrat party keeps letting the most violent, most dangerous offender out....or refuses to even put them in jail and prison?

I have link after link of democrat party policies...from striking down laws, to stopping the police from chasing criminals, to granting no cash bail to repeat gun offenders, .........it is these policies that are allowing criminals to shoot people...

yet you blame normal gun owners.......

Do you see why we can't see eye to eye?


----------



## 2aguy

BLUE COLLAR said:


> So, you are suggesting that we should raise taxes and build more prisons?  Don't we already have more per capita incarcerations than any other country?
> 
> Blaming the Democratic Party is bullshit.  The other side has control of the country half of the time.




The aren't in control of these cities...the most violent cities in this country have been run by democrat party mayors, city councils, prosecutors and judges for decades...some going all the way back to after the Civil War....

National level policies are not the same as the local policies...where the democrats attack the police and release criminals...

Do you want me to give you the links to the policies and actions?

Just this week Chicago is ordering the police to not foot chase fleeing criminals..........California is trying to stop prosecutions for drive by shootings.....

And you don't see this as the main drivers of crime?


----------



## 2aguy

BLUE COLLAR said:


> So, you are suggesting that we should raise taxes and build more prisons?  Don't we already have more per capita incarcerations than any other country?
> 
> Blaming the Democratic Party is bullshit.  The other side has control of the country half of the time.




This is just a sample....

*New York...

*

The Mayor of New York City held a press conference yesterday that was full of fire and brimstone. The cover of the New York Post really says it all. “_Mayor’s plea: We took 2,600 guns… But the shooters are back on the streets_.” 

---

The Mayor is clearly frustrated and it’s reached the point where he feels compelled to point out the obvious. He said, “_after the shooting, after the arrest, after being let go — You know what they do? They go do another shooting_.” The NYPD is already aware of this because they keep arresting the same people over and over again. 

He pointed out that criminals in New York City “no longer believe you can’t do a shooting.” He continued, saying that criminals don’t take criminal justice seriously anymore.

While the Mayor didn’t mention him by name, he was clearly making a reference to Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg. The DA came into office promising to put fewer people behind bars and proceeded to make good on that threat. 



NYC Mayor: Our prosecutors are "a laughingstock" of the country*



California..



Two days after the Uvalde shooting in Texas, the California State Senate passed a bill that would allow schools not to report threats or attacks against employees to law enforcement.

----*

According to the Bill, it would repeal the provision of existing law where it requires that “whenever any employee of a school district or county superintendent of schools is attacked, assaulted, or physically threatened by any pupil, the employee and any person under whose direction or supervision the employee is employed who has knowledge of the incident are required to promptly report the incident to specified law enforcement authorities.”

SB 1273 would then make such reports to law enforcement voluntary.

*
*



California Senate Passes Bill to Allow Schools Not to Report Threats to Police

=========



Philly....



*This year, though, we’ve jumped the shark. We’re on pace for over 600 murders—the most ever. An Inquirer story last week laid out some even more disturbing findings. Since Krasner took office, the number of gun crime arrests has nearly tripled, but the conviction rate for gun crimes has plunged from 63 percent in 2017 to 49 percent in 2019. In January, I reported that, under Krasner, homicides have jumped a whopping 58 percent; just 21 percent of shootings since 2015 led to criminal charges, and less than one-tenth of those resulted in convictions.

-----



The DA’s own data dashboard shows that, every year of his tenure, Krasner’s office has dismissed or withdrawn more violent cases and gun cases than the year before. In fact, the average annual number of such cases that were dismissed or withdrawn has increased by 85 percent during Krasner’s tenure, compared with the four years before he took office. All of this despite the fact that the police are making more gun arrests than at any time since 2015.*



Larry Krasner is losing the battle against homicide. Will voters even care?



New york, 4/25/22



We recently looked at the results of New York City Mayor Eric Adams bringing back the special gun crimes task force of the NYPD, though these days the various units deployed around the city have the much friendlier name of Neighborhood Safety Teams. The Mayor reported that in just the first few weeks of operation, the NSTs had taken dozens of guns off the streets and made more than two dozen arrests. The vast majority of them had one thing in common. The suspects generally had prior convictions or arrests for similar crimes. So that’s some great news, right? Getting more shooters and illegal guns off the street was the stated objective and if they keep up this good work the city should see some measurable improvements. 

*There’s just one problem, however. Of those 25 suspects arrested on gun charges, how many of them do you think are still behind bars? If you guessed “one,” give yourself a cookie. All the rest of them have been sprung. (NY Post)



Remember all of those gun charges the NYPD was finally bringing? Never mind*

California...



California Democrats hate the gun, not the gunman – Orange County Register

Now that Democrats have supermajorities in the California state Legislature, they’ve rolled into Sacramento with a zest for lowering the state’s prison population and have interpreted St. Augustine’s words of wisdom to mean, “Hate the gun, not the gunman.”

I say this because, once they finally took a break from preaching about the benefits of stricter gun control, the state Senate voted to loosen sentencing guidelines for criminals convicted of gun crimes.

Currently, California law requires anyone who uses a gun while committing a felony to have their sentence increased by 10 years or more in prison — on top of the normal criminal penalty. If enacted, Senate Bill 620 would eliminate that mandate.

*The bill, which passed on a 22-14 party-line vote, with support only from Democrats, now heads to the state Assembly for consideration. 

Republicans and the National Rifle Association have vowed to campaign against it.*

Why have Democrats suddenly developed a soft spot for criminals convicted of gun crimes? The bill’s author, state Sen. Steve Bradford, D-Gardena, says that he was motivated to write the bill after a 17-year-old riding in a car involved in a drive-by shooting was sentenced to 25 years in prison, even though he claims that he wasn’t the one who pulled the trigger.
------------
Prop. 57, for example, very deceptively and fundamentally changed the definition of what constitutes a “non-violent” offense.


*supplying a firearm to a gang member,*

l
*felon obtaining a firearm,

discharging a firearm on school grounds*



New Y


----------



## 2aguy

BLUE COLLAR said:


> So, you are suggesting that we should raise taxes and build more prisons?  Don't we already have more per capita incarcerations than any other country?
> 
> Blaming the Democratic Party is bullshit.  The other side has control of the country half of the time.




This is not a national policy.....this is from local democrats...can you explain this.....or the others?

*So why are Washington Democrats offering up a bill in the state legislature to lower the penalties for drive-by shootings? *


*Well, there’s woke and then there’s just plain stupid. Washington state Democrats are vying to become the best stupid they can be, bless ’em.

Currently, Washington law holds that a drive-by shooter should get an aggravated enhancement if he is arrested and prosecuted—and that’s a big if. Such an enhancement could land a drive-by murderer a life prison sentence.

But under a bill proposed for the upcoming Washington state legislature by white, woke ex-con state Rep. Tarra Simmons and her co-sponsor David Hackney, the reduction in penalties is a move toward “racial equity.” That’s right, drive-by shooting prosecutorial outcomes are racist. Never mind all the black and brown people who are the disproportionate victims of drive-by shootings.*

Washington State Democrats Want Decreased Penalties for Drive-By Shooters Because... Aw, You Guessed


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

2aguy said:


> It isn't easy access......they have been captured over and over again by the police....with illegal guns.....and instead of being sent away for 10 years.......should be much longer...the democrat party prosecutors drop the gun charges, the democrat party judges release them with no cash bail....and the democrat party politicians remove the gun laws that focus on actual criminals...while increasing the penalties on normal gun owners...


So you say, but can you point to the evidence that this is the complete causation?  I accept that part of what you say is correct.  You need to similarly allow that lax gun laws are part of the problem.  We will not solve the problems without taking a broad view of its nature.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

BLUE COLLAR said:


> So, you are suggesting that we should raise taxes and build more prisons?  Don't we already have more per capita incarcerations than any other country?
> 
> Blaming the Democratic Party is bullshit.  The other side has control of the country half of the time.



*So, you are suggesting that we should raise taxes and build more prisons? *

Yes.

*Don't we already have more per capita incarcerations than any other country? *

Yes.

*Blaming the Democratic Party is bullshit.  The other side has control of the country half of the time.*

It's not a federal issue, it's a state and local issue.


----------



## 2aguy

BLUE COLLAR said:


> So you say, but can you point to the evidence that this is the complete causation?  I accept that part of what you say is correct.  You need to similarly allow that lax gun laws are part of the problem.  We will not solve the problems without taking a broad view of its nature.




The complete causation...no.......what you have are boys and girls raised in fatherless homes.....to single mothers.....there is a 75% out of wedlock birth rate in black neighorhoods......it is fatherless homes that drive crime and poverty....that is the root.....

The fertilizer to this problem is the policies of the democrat party that allow criminals to go free and to not fear the consequences of using a gun to shoot people......

These gang members are tragic cases.......but you don't help them by letting them murder more innocent people.....

What about this do you not understand....we do not have lax gun laws......we have all the gun laws we need to arrest and imprison criminals who use guns for crime....but those 20,000 gun laws are useless when the democrat party refuses to use them, and releases known, violent, repeat gun offenders over and over again...

it isn't the gun....it isn't normal gun owners.....it is soft on crime policies by the democrats.


----------



## 2aguy

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *So, you are suggesting that we should raise taxes and build more prisons? *
> 
> Yes.
> 
> *Don't we already have more per capita incarcerations than any other country? *
> 
> Yes.
> 
> *Blaming the Democratic Party is bullshit.  The other side has control of the country half of the time.*
> 
> It's not a federal issue, it's a state and local issue.




Yep.....thank you......


----------



## 2aguy

BLUE COLLAR said:


> So you say, but can you point to the evidence that this is the complete causation?  I accept that part of what you say is correct.  You need to similarly allow that lax gun laws are part of the problem.  We will not solve the problems without taking a broad view of its nature.




My post here #749 documents just a few of the examples of the democrat party prosecutors refusing to prosecute actual gun crimnals captured by the police......and who are then released by the judges, now with no cash bail requirements.........and yet you say we need more gun laws when the democrats aren't using the gun laws we actually have?


----------



## Tom Paine 1949

Toddsterpatriot said:


> NRA?


Yes, of course, NRA. Not “IRA.” Not an Irish bone in my body — so far as I know, anyway.  

***

Periods of relative peace and mutual violence between ethnic communities, e.g. Protestant and Irish communities in Northern Ireland, or the domination of England over Ireland, Scotland, India  (and even the U.S. for over a hundred years) all show that political oppression or the lack of it is not simply or directly associated with “gun ownership” — though this often plays a part in colonial situations.

The army of the India Raj was run by British officers but its ranks were overwhelmingly Indians. The relative lack of weapons in civilian hands did not cause the massacres of innocents during Indian partition either. Consciousness, culture, politics, economic institutions, history — these are usually the key factors that lead to, or end in, massacres and genocide.

Nobody is out to genocide white Americans — or do you think different? In China the CCP was quite popular right up to the beginning of land collectivizations and the Great Leap Forward. These policies — when added to natural disasters — led to the huge Han starvation deaths that you here call “genocide.”

Germany and Jews? No amount of weapons in Jewish hands would have saved them, as they were a minority population distributed throughout the country and largely integrated into German society. Of course they were not completed integrated, and were turned into hated outsiders and scapegoats by German nationalists like Hitler with his mad Nazi Party demagogy.

Of course weapons in civilian hands sometimes *do*  matter. When crime is completely out of control virtually everybody wants them for self protection. Israel has them and has used them successfully to survive … and expand. Ukraine needs them to survive today. But here we are talking more of military force, of armies.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

2aguy said:


> This is just a sample....
> 
> *New York...*
> 
> 
> 
> The Mayor of New York City held a press conference yesterday that was full of fire and brimstone. The cover of the New York Post really says it all. “_Mayor’s plea: We took 2,600 guns… But the shooters are back on the streets_.”
> 
> ---
> 
> The Mayor is clearly frustrated and it’s reached the point where he feels compelled to point out the obvious. He said, “_after the shooting, after the arrest, after being let go — You know what they do? They go do another shooting_.” The NYPD is already aware of this because they keep arresting the same people over and over again.
> 
> He pointed out that criminals in New York City “no longer believe you can’t do a shooting.” He continued, saying that criminals don’t take criminal justice seriously anymore.
> 
> While the Mayor didn’t mention him by name, he was clearly making a reference to Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg. The DA came into office promising to put fewer people behind bars and proceeded to make good on that threat.
> 
> 
> 
> NYC Mayor: Our prosecutors are "a laughingstock" of the country
> 
> 
> 
> *California..
> 
> 
> 
> Two days after the Uvalde shooting in Texas, the California State Senate passed a bill that would allow schools not to report threats or attacks against employees to law enforcement.
> 
> ----*
> 
> According to the Bill, it would repeal the provision of existing law where it requires that “whenever any employee of a school district or county superintendent of schools is attacked, assaulted, or physically threatened by any pupil, the employee and any person under whose direction or supervision the employee is employed who has knowledge of the incident are required to promptly report the incident to specified law enforcement authorities.”
> 
> SB 1273 would then make such reports to law enforcement voluntary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Senate Passes Bill to Allow Schools Not to Report Threats to Police
> 
> =========
> 
> 
> 
> Philly....
> 
> 
> 
> *This year, though, we’ve jumped the shark. We’re on pace for over 600 murders—the most ever. An Inquirer story last week laid out some even more disturbing findings. Since Krasner took office, the number of gun crime arrests has nearly tripled, but the conviction rate for gun crimes has plunged from 63 percent in 2017 to 49 percent in 2019. In January, I reported that, under Krasner, homicides have jumped a whopping 58 percent; just 21 percent of shootings since 2015 led to criminal charges, and less than one-tenth of those resulted in convictions.
> 
> -----
> 
> 
> 
> The DA’s own data dashboard shows that, every year of his tenure, Krasner’s office has dismissed or withdrawn more violent cases and gun cases than the year before. In fact, the average annual number of such cases that were dismissed or withdrawn has increased by 85 percent during Krasner’s tenure, compared with the four years before he took office. All of this despite the fact that the police are making more gun arrests than at any time since 2015.*
> 
> 
> 
> Larry Krasner is losing the battle against homicide. Will voters even care?
> 
> 
> 
> New york, 4/25/22
> 
> 
> 
> We recently looked at the results of New York City Mayor Eric Adams bringing back the special gun crimes task force of the NYPD, though these days the various units deployed around the city have the much friendlier name of Neighborhood Safety Teams. The Mayor reported that in just the first few weeks of operation, the NSTs had taken dozens of guns off the streets and made more than two dozen arrests. The vast majority of them had one thing in common. The suspects generally had prior convictions or arrests for similar crimes. So that’s some great news, right? Getting more shooters and illegal guns off the street was the stated objective and if they keep up this good work the city should see some measurable improvements.
> 
> *There’s just one problem, however. Of those 25 suspects arrested on gun charges, how many of them do you think are still behind bars? If you guessed “one,” give yourself a cookie. All the rest of them have been sprung. (NY Post)
> 
> 
> 
> Remember all of those gun charges the NYPD was finally bringing? Never mind*
> 
> California...
> 
> 
> 
> California Democrats hate the gun, not the gunman – Orange County Register
> 
> Now that Democrats have supermajorities in the California state Legislature, they’ve rolled into Sacramento with a zest for lowering the state’s prison population and have interpreted St. Augustine’s words of wisdom to mean, “Hate the gun, not the gunman.”
> 
> I say this because, once they finally took a break from preaching about the benefits of stricter gun control, the state Senate voted to loosen sentencing guidelines for criminals convicted of gun crimes.
> 
> Currently, California law requires anyone who uses a gun while committing a felony to have their sentence increased by 10 years or more in prison — on top of the normal criminal penalty. If enacted, Senate Bill 620 would eliminate that mandate.
> 
> *The bill, which passed on a 22-14 party-line vote, with support only from Democrats, now heads to the state Assembly for consideration.
> 
> Republicans and the National Rifle Association have vowed to campaign against it.*
> 
> Why have Democrats suddenly developed a soft spot for criminals convicted of gun crimes? The bill’s author, state Sen. Steve Bradford, D-Gardena, says that he was motivated to write the bill after a 17-year-old riding in a car involved in a drive-by shooting was sentenced to 25 years in prison, even though he claims that he wasn’t the one who pulled the trigger.
> ------------
> Prop. 57, for example, very deceptively and fundamentally changed the definition of what constitutes a “non-violent” offense.
> 
> 
> *supplying a firearm to a gang member,*
> 
> l
> *felon obtaining a firearm,
> 
> discharging a firearm on school grounds*
> 
> 
> 
> New Y


Care to compare California's per capita violence to the other 49 states?  

Does California make mistakes.  Yes their shit stinks just like wherever it is that you hail.

I'm going to try a different approach.  I'll suggest to you that there are no absolutes.  Regarding gun violence, do you assign any responsibility to the proliferations of firearms and lax regulations?   If you don't, then all of this is a waste of keystrokes.   

In the meantime, my boss wants me to go shopping and I'm getting the evil eye.


----------



## 2aguy

BLUE COLLAR said:


> Care to compare California's per capita violence to the other 49 states?
> 
> Does California make mistakes.  Yes their shit stinks just like wherever it is that you hail.
> 
> I'm going to try a different approach.  I'll suggest to you that there are no absolutes.  Regarding gun violence, do you assign any responsibility to the proliferations of firearms and lax regulations?   If you don't, then all of this is a waste of keystrokes.
> 
> In the meantime, my boss wants me to go shopping and I'm getting the evil eye.





Yeah.....Texas.......California has extreme gun control laws...Texas does not.....California has massive gun crime....

No...I do not........how do you see 20,000 gun laws at the Federal, state and local level and say we have lax gun laws.....

At the same time, I show you exact laws and policies by the democrat party that allow violent criminals to repeatedly go out and shoot people...and you still go back to "lax gun laws."


What gun laws do we need?   We can arrest any criminal who uses a gun for crime.......most mass public shooters break no laws before they commit their murders....

What gun control laws do we need.......?

Mention what you think, and we will dissect them........most anti-gun fanatics, not meaning you necessarily.....will refuse to bring up specific gun laws....because they know even the tiniest amount of analysis shows they do nothing....well...they do make it more expensive, more legally dangerous for normal gun owners...which is what the anti-gun fanatics want.....and their true goal..


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

2aguy said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is just a sample....
> 
> *New York...*
> 
> 
> 
> The Mayor of New York City held a press conference yesterday that was full of fire and brimstone. The cover of the New York Post really says it all. “_Mayor’s plea: We took 2,600 guns… But the shooters are back on the streets_.”
> 
> ---
> 
> The Mayor is clearly frustrated and it’s reached the point where he feels compelled to point out the obvious. He said, “_after the shooting, after the arrest, after being let go — You know what they do? They go do another shooting_.” The NYPD is already aware of this because they keep arresting the same people over and over again.
> 
> He pointed out that criminals in New York City “no longer believe you can’t do a shooting.” He continued, saying that criminals don’t take criminal justice seriously anymore.
> 
> While the Mayor didn’t mention him by name, he was clearly making a reference to Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg. The DA came into office promising to put fewer people behind bars and proceeded to make good on that threat.
> 
> 
> 
> NYC Mayor: Our prosecutors are "a laughingstock" of the country
> 
> 
> 
> *California..
> 
> 
> 
> Two days after the Uvalde shooting in Texas, the California State Senate passed a bill that would allow schools not to report threats or attacks against employees to law enforcement.
> 
> ----*
> 
> According to the Bill, it would repeal the provision of existing law where it requires that “whenever any employee of a school district or county superintendent of schools is attacked, assaulted, or physically threatened by any pupil, the employee and any person under whose direction or supervision the employee is employed who has knowledge of the incident are required to promptly report the incident to specified law enforcement authorities.”
> 
> SB 1273 would then make such reports to law enforcement voluntary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Senate Passes Bill to Allow Schools Not to Report Threats to Police
> 
> =========
> 
> 
> 
> Philly....
> 
> 
> 
> *This year, though, we’ve jumped the shark. We’re on pace for over 600 murders—the most ever. An Inquirer story last week laid out some even more disturbing findings. Since Krasner took office, the number of gun crime arrests has nearly tripled, but the conviction rate for gun crimes has plunged from 63 percent in 2017 to 49 percent in 2019. In January, I reported that, under Krasner, homicides have jumped a whopping 58 percent; just 21 percent of shootings since 2015 led to criminal charges, and less than one-tenth of those resulted in convictions.
> 
> -----
> 
> 
> 
> The DA’s own data dashboard shows that, every year of his tenure, Krasner’s office has dismissed or withdrawn more violent cases and gun cases than the year before. In fact, the average annual number of such cases that were dismissed or withdrawn has increased by 85 percent during Krasner’s tenure, compared with the four years before he took office. All of this despite the fact that the police are making more gun arrests than at any time since 2015.*
> 
> 
> 
> Larry Krasner is losing the battle against homicide. Will voters even care?
> 
> 
> 
> New york, 4/25/22
> 
> 
> 
> We recently looked at the results of New York City Mayor Eric Adams bringing back the special gun crimes task force of the NYPD, though these days the various units deployed around the city have the much friendlier name of Neighborhood Safety Teams. The Mayor reported that in just the first few weeks of operation, the NSTs had taken dozens of guns off the streets and made more than two dozen arrests. The vast majority of them had one thing in common. The suspects generally had prior convictions or arrests for similar crimes. So that’s some great news, right? Getting more shooters and illegal guns off the street was the stated objective and if they keep up this good work the city should see some measurable improvements.
> 
> *There’s just one problem, however. Of those 25 suspects arrested on gun charges, how many of them do you think are still behind bars? If you guessed “one,” give yourself a cookie. All the rest of them have been sprung. (NY Post)
> 
> 
> 
> Remember all of those gun charges the NYPD was finally bringing? Never mind*
> 
> California...
> 
> 
> 
> California Democrats hate the gun, not the gunman – Orange County Register
> 
> Now that Democrats have supermajorities in the California state Legislature, they’ve rolled into Sacramento with a zest for lowering the state’s prison population and have interpreted St. Augustine’s words of wisdom to mean, “Hate the gun, not the gunman.”
> 
> I say this because, once they finally took a break from preaching about the benefits of stricter gun control, the state Senate voted to loosen sentencing guidelines for criminals convicted of gun crimes.
> 
> Currently, California law requires anyone who uses a gun while committing a felony to have their sentence increased by 10 years or more in prison — on top of the normal criminal penalty. If enacted, Senate Bill 620 would eliminate that mandate.
> 
> *The bill, which passed on a 22-14 party-line vote, with support only from Democrats, now heads to the state Assembly for consideration.
> 
> Republicans and the National Rifle Association have vowed to campaign against it.*
> 
> Why have Democrats suddenly developed a soft spot for criminals convicted of gun crimes? The bill’s author, state Sen. Steve Bradford, D-Gardena, says that he was motivated to write the bill after a 17-year-old riding in a car involved in a drive-by shooting was sentenced to 25 years in prison, even though he claims that he wasn’t the one who pulled the trigger.
> ------------
> Prop. 57, for example, very deceptively and fundamentally changed the definition of what constitutes a “non-violent” offense.
> 
> 
> *supplying a firearm to a gang member,*
> 
> l
> *felon obtaining a firearm,
> 
> discharging a firearm on school grounds*
> 
> 
> 
> New Y
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYC Mayor: Our prosecutors are "a laughingstock" of the country
> 
> 
> 
> *California..
> 
> 
> 
> Two days after the Uvalde shooting in Texas, the California State Senate passed a bill that would allow schools not to report threats or attacks against employees to law enforcement.
> 
> ----*
> 
> According to the Bill, it would repeal the provision of existing law where it requires that “whenever any employee of a school district or county superintendent of schools is attacked, assaulted, or physically threatened by any pupil, the employee and any person under whose direction or supervision the employee is employed who has knowledge of the incident are required to promptly report the incident to specified law enforcement authorities.”
> 
> SB 1273 would then make such reports to law enforcement voluntary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Senate Passes Bill to Allow Schools Not to Report Threats to Police
> 
> =========
> 
> 
> 
> Philly....
> 
> 
> 
> *This year, though, we’ve jumped the shark. We’re on pace for over 600 murders—the most ever. An Inquirer story last week laid out some even more disturbing findings. Since Krasner took office, the number of gun crime arrests has nearly tripled, but the conviction rate for gun crimes has plunged from 63 percent in 2017 to 49 percent in 2019. In January, I reported that, under Krasner, homicides have jumped a whopping 58 percent; just 21 percent of shootings since 2015 led to criminal charges, and less than one-tenth of those resulted in convictions.
> 
> -----
> 
> 
> 
> The DA’s own data dashboard shows that, every year of his tenure, Krasner’s office has dismissed or withdrawn more violent cases and gun cases than the year before. In fact, the average annual number of such cases that were dismissed or withdrawn has increased by 85 percent during Krasner’s tenure, compared with the four years before he took office. All of this despite the fact that the police are making more gun arrests than at any time since 2015.*
> 
> 
> 
> Larry Krasner is losing the battle against homicide. Will voters even care?
> 
> 
> 
> New york, 4/25/22
> 
> 
> 
> We recently looked at the results of New York City Mayor Eric Adams bringing back the special gun crimes task force of the NYPD, though these days the various units deployed around the city have the much friendlier name of Neighborhood Safety Teams. The Mayor reported that in just the first few weeks of operation, the NSTs had taken dozens of guns off the streets and made more than two dozen arrests. The vast majority of them had one thing in common. The suspects generally had prior convictions or arrests for similar crimes. So that’s some great news, right? Getting more shooters and illegal guns off the street was the stated objective and if they keep up this good work the city should see some measurable improvements.
> 
> *There’s just one problem, however. Of those 25 suspects arrested on gun charges, how many of them do you think are still behind bars? If you guessed “one,” give yourself a cookie. All the rest of them have been sprung. (NY Post)
> 
> 
> 
> Remember all of those gun charges the NYPD was finally bringing? Never mind*
> 
> California...
> 
> 
> 
> California Democrats hate the gun, not the gunman – Orange County Register
> 
> Now that Democrats have supermajorities in the California state Legislature, they’ve rolled into Sacramento with a zest for lowering the state’s prison population and have interpreted St. Augustine’s words of wisdom to mean, “Hate the gun, not the gunman.”
> 
> I say this because, once they finally took a break from preaching about the benefits of stricter gun control, the state Senate voted to loosen sentencing guidelines for criminals convicted of gun crimes.
> 
> Currently, California law requires anyone who uses a gun while committing a felony to have their sentence increased by 10 years or more in prison — on top of the normal criminal penalty. If enacted, Senate Bill 620 would eliminate that mandate.
> 
> *The bill, which passed on a 22-14 party-line vote, with support only from Democrats, now heads to the state Assembly for consideration.
> 
> Republicans and the National Rifle Association have vowed to campaign against it.*
> 
> Why have Democrats suddenly developed a soft spot for criminals convicted of gun crimes? The bill’s author, state Sen. Steve Bradford, D-Gardena, says that he was motivated to write the bill after a 17-year-old riding in a car involved in a drive-by shooting was sentenced to 25 years in prison, even though he claims that he wasn’t the one who pulled the trigger.
> ------------
> Prop. 57, for example, very deceptively and fundamentally changed the definition of what constitutes a “non-violent” offense.
> 
> 
> *supplying a firearm to a gang member,*
> 
> l
> *felon obtaining a firearm,
> 
> discharging a firearm on school grounds*
> 
> 
> 
> New Y
Click to expand...

*Who the hell do you think you are kidding with your rapid-fire avalanche of paste?*

I'd like to add a sample of my own, and do note that it is just a sample, a citing of a half dozen of lengthy dips into paste.  
At 10:40 you gave post #742, at 10:41 post #743, and at 10:43 post #745.  All of these were lengthy efforts comprised almost entirely of paste.  Eight minutes later, you reeled off 747, 748 and 749 in the span of six fucking minutes.

Are you a bot in the employ of the NRA or a gun manufacturer - or simply a dedicated fanatic who has spent years organizing paste by subject matter?

Regardless, this is a talk forum, get it?  

Supporting reference in reasonable amounts is to be expected, but that does not appear to be your objective.  Rather, I sense that you think I'm going to wither at the presentation of your over done paste.  Sorry, but the sorry-ass methodology is far too transparent.


----------



## 2aguy

BLUE COLLAR said:


> *Who the hell do you think you are kidding with your rapid-fire avalanche of paste?*
> 
> I'd like to add a sample of my own, and do note that it is just a sample, a citing of a half dozen of lengthy dips into paste.
> At 10:40 you gave post #742, at 10:41 post #743, and at 10:43 post #745.  All of these were lengthy efforts comprised almost entirely of paste.  Eight minutes later, you reeled off 747, 748 and 749 in the span of six fucking minutes.
> 
> Are you a bot in the employ of the NRA or a gun manufacturer - or simply a dedicated fanatic who has spent years organizing paste by subject matter?
> 
> Regardless, this is a talk forum, get it?
> 
> Supporting reference in reasonable amounts is to be expected, but that does not appear to be your objective.  Rather, I sense that you think I'm going to wither at the presentation of your over done paste.  Sorry, but the sorry-ass methodology is far too transparent.




Hey....you challenged me.,

Your post #746...

*Blaming the Democratic Party is bullshit.*


 you ....I give you information....and like most anti-gun fanatics....you demand links and back up of what I say....I post the links and the facts, and then you bitch like a baby about "cut and paste."

I gave you their exact policies...just a sample...and you complain because it shows that you don't understand the issue....


----------



## 2aguy

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> Yes, of course, NRA. Not “IRA.” Not an Irish bone in my body — so far as I know, anyway.
> 
> ***
> 
> Periods of relative peace and mutual violence between ethnic communities, e.g. Protestant and Irish communities in Northern Ireland, or the domination of England over Ireland, Scotland, India  (and even the U.S. for over a hundred years) all show that political oppression or the lack of it is not simply or directly associated with “gun ownership” — though this often plays a part in colonial situations.
> 
> The army of the India Raj was run by British officers but its ranks were overwhelmingly Indians. The relative lack of weapons in civilian hands did not cause the massacres of innocents during Indian partition either. Consciousness, culture, politics, economic institutions, history — these are usually the key factors that lead to, or end in, massacres and genocide.
> 
> Nobody is out to genocide white Americans — or do you think different? In China the CCP was quite popular right up to the beginning of land collectivizations and the Great Leap Forward. These policies — when added to natural disasters — led to the huge Han starvation deaths that you here call “genocide.”
> 
> Germany and Jews? No amount of weapons in Jewish hands would have saved them, as they were a minority population distributed throughout the country and largely integrated into German society. Of course they were not completed integrated, and were turned into hated outsiders and scapegoats by German nationalists like Hitler with his mad Nazi Party demagogy.
> 
> Of course weapons in civilian hands sometimes *do*  matter. When crime is completely out of control virtually everybody wants them for self protection. Israel has them and has used them successfully to survive … and expand. Ukraine needs them to survive today. But here we are talking more of military force, of armies.




Guns in the hands of normal Germans would have prevented the rise of the national socialists......their rise to power was done through murder and intimidation of normal Germans.....much like here, the blm and antifa brown shirts of the democrat party burned, looted and murdered about 40 Americans.....in primarily black neighborhoods, in cities under the total control of the democrat party...where the democrat party mayors ordered the police to stand down and do nothing to stop the violence....

Why didn't blm and antifa march into white neighborhoods in the suburbs?  That is where people have guns....it isn't a coincidence that the neighborhoods targeted by the democrats and their blm/antifa brown shirts were in extreme gun control cities.........

You just had to see the blm/antifa brown shirts keep walking when that Missouri couple stood outside their home with their rifle and pistol.....

Preventing violence, and intimidation is the primary tool to keep elections fair, to keep elections normal...but when one group will destroy businesses...beat and murder anyone who pokes their head up without having to worry about their victims shooting them.....then you get the rise of radical groups....

We experienced it first in New York...when the democrats passed their gun control laws to protect their brown shirts...the Sullivan Laws...

The strange birth of NY’s gun laws

Problem was the gangs worked for Tammany. The Democratic machine used them as_shtarkers_ (sluggers), enforcing discipline at the polls and intimidating the opposition. Gang leaders like Monk Eastman were even employed as informal “sheriffs,” keeping their turf under Tammany control.

The Tammany Tiger needed to rein in the gangs without completely crippling them. Enter Big Tim with the perfect solution: Ostensibly disarm the gangs — and ordinary citizens, too — while still keeping them on the streets.

In fact, he gave the game away during the debate on the bill, which flew through Albany: “I want to make it so the young thugs in my district will get three years for carrying dangerous weapons instead of getting a sentence in the electric chair a year from now.”

*Sullivan knew the gangs would flout the law, but appearances were more important than results. *Young toughs took to sewing the pockets of their coats shut, so that cops couldn’t plant firearms on them, and many gangsters stashed their weapons inside their girlfriends’ “bird cages” — wire-mesh fashion contraptions around which women would wind their hair.

----Ordinary citizens, on the other hand, were disarmed, which solved another problem: *Gangsters had been bitterly complaining to Tammany that their victims sometimes shot back at them.*

So gang violence didn’t drop under the Sullivan Act — and really took off after the passage of Prohibition in 1920. Spectacular gangland rubouts — like the 1932 machine-gunning of “Mad Dog” Coll in a drugstore phone booth on 23rd Street — became the norm.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

2aguy said:


> The laws you want erode the Right......and will allow the democrats to keep pushing more and more restrictions that do nothing to stop crime or mass shootings, but will slowly take guns away from normal people...
> 
> Can you explain how any of the laws the democrats and you want would have stopped any of the mass public shootings or the crimes in democrat party controlled cities?


Yes, proximate assault weapons might have been avoided in some cases, in other cases, a more thorough background screening might have kept weapons out of the wrong hands.  Prudent people are willing to pursue the possibilities.

Cities with their denser populations bring greater attraction for thieves and maniacs both - in addition to the greater friction created at close quarters.  Your contention that Democrats are emptying the prisons is nonsense.  Which prisons are empty or anywhere close to it?    

And don't think for a minute that I buy the bullshit about increasing taxes to build more prisons.  I'm reminded of a certain Governor who pointed at the mentally ill as the culprit in a recent school shooting.  The hypocrite did so on the heels of having reduced the budget for the mentally ill.


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

2aguy said:


> Hey....you challenged me.,
> 
> Your post #746...
> 
> *Blaming the Democratic Party is bullshit.*
> 
> 
> you ....I give you information....and like most anti-gun fanatics....you demand links and back up of what I say....I post the links and the facts, and then you bitch like a baby about "cut and paste."
> 
> I gave you their exact policies...just a sample...and you complain because it shows that you don't understand the issue....


What a load of crap.  

Six oversized post laden with paste in what, nine minutes?  You assessed the "exactness" of all that in less then ten minutes?  One more time, who the fuck do you think you are kidding.  You are playing games and I'm wise to it.

Your purpose isn't to engage honest discourse, it's to close it down.


----------



## 2aguy

BLUE COLLAR said:


> Yes, proximate assault weapons might have been avoided in some cases, in other cases, a more thorough background screening might have kept weapons out of the wrong hands.  Prudent people are willing to pursue the possibilities.
> 
> Cities with their denser populations bring greater attraction for thieves and maniacs both - in addition to the greater friction created at close quarters.  Your contention that Democrats are emptying the prisons is nonsense.  Which prisons are empty or anywhere close to it?
> 
> And don't think for a minute that I buy the bullshit about increasing taxes to build more prisons.  I'm reminded of a certain Governor who pointed at the mentally ill as the culprit in a recent school shooting.  The hypocrite did so on the heels of having reduced the budget for the mentally ill.




*Your contention that Democrats are emptying the prisons is nonsense.  Which prisons are empty or anywhere close to it?  

From my links I gave that you bitched about...you had mayors and police chiefs complaining that the states attorneys in their cities, and the judges in their cities are releasing known, violent gun offenders with multiple felony convictions, over and over again...often with no cash bail......from L.A., to Chicago, to Baltimore, to New York and every other city under the control of democrats...this is happening....

The democrat party prosectors aren't even prosecuting felons.......so they aren't even getting to prison in the first place....

Then you have this...so don't bitch about cut and paste.....you made the challenge....not me.

California is allowing 76,000 inmates to leave prison earlier, starting Saturday. *

*They include violent and repeat felons.*

*The move comes as the state aims to trim further the population of what once was the nation’s largest state correctional system.*

*








						76,000 California inmates now eligible for earlier releases
					

Inmates convicted of violent crimes could be eligible for good behavior credits that shorten their life sentences by one-third instead of one-fifth.




					www.abc10.com
				



*======

*Chicago....

Even though they were supposed to keep inmates in custody for at least 60 days before reducing their sentences with early release credits, the IDOC was giving inmates credit from day 1. The result was that prisoners who had sentencing credit for their time in county jails awaiting trial were eligible for release on their first day in the IDOC* 
----
*First and foremost, the requirement of serving 60 days before receiving other early release credits is back. But this time, it is written into law. Before 2009, the 60-day requirement was unwritten and no one complied with it. Now this is the rule followed in every case.

The 60-day requirement created the term, “61-day wonder,” which describes an inmate who is immediately eligible for release after serving 60 days. A prisoner serving a one-year IDOC sentence on an ordinary, non-violent Class 4 felony should become a 61-day wonder.

The six-month good conduct credit is back, too. While the Code of Corrections calls it good conduct credit, the IDOC is calling it Supplemental Sentence Credit (SSC). But the name is not the only thing that has changed. There are more restrictions.*








						IDOC Early Release | 61-Day Parole | 6-Month Good Conduct Credit
					

The Department of Corrections has re-instituted an early release program that will allow some offenders to get released from prison after 61 days.



					www.criminallawyerillinois.com
				



==========

*The state’s attorney promised to transform the office. Data shows she’s dismissed thousands of felonies that would have been pursued in the past.*











						The Kim Foxx Effect: How Prosecutions Have Changed in Cook County
					

The state’s attorney promised to transform the office. Data shows she’s dismissed thousands of felonies that would have been pursued in the past.




					www.themarshallproject.org
				



=====

*Cook County State’s Attorney Kim Foxx is dropping felony cases involving charges of murder and other serious offenses at a higher rate than her predecessor, according to a Tribune analysis that comes amid a growing debate over criminal justice reform.*

*During Foxx’s first three years as the county’s top prosecutor, her office dropped all charges against 29.9% of felony defendants, a dramatic increase over her predecessor, the Tribune found. For the last three years of Anita Alvarez’s tenure, the rate was 19.4%.*









						Kim Foxx drops more felony cases as Cook County state’s attorney than her predecessor, Tribune analysis shows
					

An analysis shows Cook County’s top prosecutor is dropping more felony cases than her predecessor. Here’s a look at Kim Foxx's overall record.




					www.chicagotribune.com
				




*New York...*

6,500 accused felons go scot-free as NYC DAs decline to prosecute​








						6,500 accused felons go scot-free as NYC DAs decline to prosecute
					

District attorneys across the Big Apple last year declined to prosecute accused felons at nearly twice the rate of 2019 — letting more than 6,500 suspects off the hook, The Post has learned. …




					nypost.com
				




California....

*He mandated an end to seeking cash bail, the death penalty, the sentence of life without parole and the prosecution of anyone younger than 18 as an adult. And in a rare, if not unprecedented, move by an American prosecutor, 

Gascón declared his intent to effectively end very long sentences — in pending cases as well as new ones — for some of the most serious crimes, including murder.
---
Along with reconsidering more than 10,000 pending cases, Gascón pledged in his speech to make “an unprecedented effort to re-evaluate and resentence” thousands of prison terms. He referred to at least 20,000 that were “far longer than those they would receive under the charging policies I announced today. That is one-fifth of California’s total prison population.”*









						He’s Remaking Criminal Justice in L.A. But How Far Is Too Far?
					

To keep people out of prison, George Gascón is risking everything: rising violent crime, a staff rebellion and the votes that made him district attorney.




					www.nytimes.com
				



-------

Another california prosecutor...

Chesa Boudin sent hundreds of violent offenders to diversion — and he has no idea where they are​








						Chesa Boudin sent hundreds of violent offenders to diversion — and he has no idea where they are
					

Two studies show programs were in deep trouble years before Boudin took office




					susanreynolds.substack.com


----------



## 2aguy

BLUE COLLAR said:


> What a load of crap.
> 
> Six oversized post laden with paste in what, nine minutes?  You assessed the "exactness" of all that in less then ten minutes?  One more time, who the fuck do you think you are kidding.  You are playing games and I'm wise to it.
> 
> Your purpose isn't to engage honest discourse, it's to close it down.




No.......dipshit.......you challenged my claim.....I supported my claim with just a bare sample of what is out there.....it completely destroys your argument about crime and guns in this country, you know it, so now you are cry babying the links.....


----------



## Tom Paine 1949

2aguy said:


> Guns in the hands of normal Germans would have prevented the rise of the national socialists.....


*This quote* — and you whole last comment about Democrats and BLM being Nazi stormtroopers who as always use force to win electoral victories in NYC and other cities, who in past could not win elections without ballot stuffing and gangs and the Sullivan Act — *is totally off the wall crazy.*

You are stuck so deep in your own anti-Democratic Party fantasies and gangster movie fantasies, so ignorant of the real history in cities, so obsessed with guns …. that you ignore the actual reality that built America’s democratic culture and famous “Melting Pot.”

The vote hustling of multi-ethnic ward healers wasn’t all negative. In those days (before there even was a “civil service”) political connections and ethnic organizations played a key role: they helped immigrants get established, provided jobs in city and private life, fixed roads, provided sanitation and utilities to new communities, even built public hospitals. You link to a simple-minded _NY Post_ article, add a host of your own prejudices, and think you will impress anyone?

The role of Churches, reforms of both progressive Democratic & Republican politicians, the role of professional organizations, as well as far-sighted industrialists providing charity and private jobs and construction and city design, all this you ignore.

Also you ignore the real class differences that needed restraining, the workers leagues fighting without weapons for shorter and safer work, craft and industrial unions. You don’t see how it was precisely the haggling and messy democratic bloc voting in cities — not guns — that forced concessions from earlier ethnic elites, how troubles were often resolved through compromises arranged by ward healers and Church leaders.

You talk about guns used by gangsters but not about social welfare reformers and suffragettes. *Guns were often a profound threat to all, deeply and almost universally unwanted in our seething urban jungles of new immigrant communities, strivers, and middle-class property owners.* *Even cops were often if not always unarmed.*

All the infinite varieties of city life and politics and celebration in hundreds of different cities with their factories, grime, crime and family & Church affairs — all this you reduce to *nothing. *Why? Because that would not serve your *idiot schema* that widespread gun ownership and carrying guns in urban conditions … would have made all our cities into “beacons of light shining brightly upon a hill.”

Not everybody wanted to live in “Dodge City.” Most normal people still don’t.


----------



## AZrailwhale

Ms. Turquoise said:


> Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens wanted to repeal the 2nd Amendment.  He was a very wise man. He was not beholden to the NRA or the gun culture folks.


Stevens was a left-wing loon.


----------



## Vrenn

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> *This quote* — and you whole last comment about Democrats and BLM being Nazi stormtroopers who as always use force to win electoral victories in NYC and other cities, who in past could not win elections without ballot stuffing and gangs and the Sullivan Act — *is totally off the wall crazy.*
> 
> You are stuck so deep in your own anti-Democratic Party fantasies and gangster movie fantasies, so ignorant of the real history in cities, so obsessed with guns …. that you ignore the actual reality that built America’s democratic culture and famous “Melting Pot.”
> 
> The vote hustling of multi-ethnic ward healers wasn’t all negative. In those days (before there even was a “civil service”) political connections and ethnic organizations played a key role: they helped immigrants get established, provided jobs in city and private life, fixed roads, provided sanitation and utilities to new communities, even built public hospitals. You link to a simple-minded _NY Post_ article, add a host of your own prejudices, and think you will impress anyone?
> 
> The role of Churches, reforms of both progressive Democratic & Republican politicians, the role of professional organizations, as well as far-sighted industrialists providing charity and private jobs and construction and city design, all this you ignore.
> 
> Also you ignore the real class differences that needed restraining, the workers leagues fighting without weapons for shorter and safer work, craft and industrial unions. You don’t see how it was precisely the haggling and messy democratic bloc voting in cities — not guns — that forced concessions from earlier ethnic elites, how troubles were often resolved through compromises arranged by ward healers and Church leaders.
> 
> You talk about guns used by gangsters but not about social welfare reformers and suffragettes. *Guns were often a profound threat to all, deeply and almost universally unwanted in our seething urban jungles of new immigrant communities, strivers, and middle-class property owners.* *Even cops were often if not always unarmed.*
> 
> All the infinite varieties of city life and politics and celebration in hundreds of different cities with their factories, grime, crime and family & Church affairs — all this you reduce to *nothing. *Why? Because that would not serve your *idiot schema* that widespread gun ownership and carrying guns in urban conditions … would have made all our cities into “beacons of light shining brightly upon a hill.”
> 
> Not everybody wanted to live in “Dodge City.” Most normal people still don’t.



If you mean Dodge City of 1867 then no.  But if you mean Dodge City of 1888 then I believe they do after living through living in in Dodge City of 1867.


----------



## 2aguy

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> *This quote* — and you whole last comment about Democrats and BLM being Nazi stormtroopers who as always use force to win electoral victories in NYC and other cities, who in past could not win elections without ballot stuffing and gangs and the Sullivan Act — *is totally off the wall crazy.*
> 
> You are stuck so deep in your own anti-Democratic Party fantasies and gangster movie fantasies, so ignorant of the real history in cities, so obsessed with guns …. that you ignore the actual reality that built America’s democratic culture and famous “Melting Pot.”
> 
> The vote hustling of multi-ethnic ward healers wasn’t all negative. In those days (before there even was a “civil service”) political connections and ethnic organizations played a key role: they helped immigrants get established, provided jobs in city and private life, fixed roads, provided sanitation and utilities to new communities, even built public hospitals. You link to a simple-minded _NY Post_ article, add a host of your own prejudices, and think you will impress anyone?
> 
> The role of Churches, reforms of both progressive Democratic & Republican politicians, the role of professional organizations, as well as far-sighted industrialists providing charity and private jobs and construction and city design, all this you ignore.
> 
> Also you ignore the real class differences that needed restraining, the workers leagues fighting without weapons for shorter and safer work, craft and industrial unions. You don’t see how it was precisely the haggling and messy democratic bloc voting in cities — not guns — that forced concessions from earlier ethnic elites, how troubles were often resolved through compromises arranged by ward healers and Church leaders.
> 
> You talk about guns used by gangsters but not about social welfare reformers and suffragettes. *Guns were often a profound threat to all, deeply and almost universally unwanted in our seething urban jungles of new immigrant communities, strivers, and middle-class property owners.* *Even cops were often if not always unarmed.*
> 
> All the infinite varieties of city life and politics and celebration in hundreds of different cities with their factories, grime, crime and family & Church affairs — all this you reduce to *nothing. *Why? Because that would not serve your *idiot schema* that widespread gun ownership and carrying guns in urban conditions … would have made all our cities into “beacons of light shining brightly upon a hill.”
> 
> Not everybody wanted to live in “Dodge City.” Most normal people still don’t.



Wow…….you are the lame ass…..thinking I am unaware of everything else you posted about….

My point, you twit…..is that the democrat party has a long history of using violence for its ends and today’s democrat party is no different……...from the Civil war, to Jim Crow to the Klan….,,violence has been one of its most often used tools.

My point about the democrat party and its policies attacking the police and freeing violent criminals…..is true….you are tap dancing trying to deny it…..


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

2aguy said:


> *Your contention that Democrats are emptying the prisons is nonsense.  Which prisons are empty or anywhere close to it?
> 
> From my links I gave that you bitched about...you had mayors and police chiefs complaining that the states attorneys in their cities, and the judges in their cities are releasing known, violent gun offenders with multiple felony convictions, over and over again...often with no cash bail......from L.A., to Chicago, to Baltimore, to New York and every other city under the control of democrats...this is happening....
> 
> The democrat party prosectors aren't even prosecuting felons.......so they aren't even getting to prison in the first place....*


I've pasted only a part of one of your many paste-rants in which you present an unbalanced selection of evidence which is not aimed at objective truth but at singling out problems in Democratic Cities and States.  ALL big cities have problems, red, blue and otherwise.  Get your head out of your ass.


It took me only about five minutes to locate a reasoned report which appears below in italics.

_"Gun violence and the prevalence of violent crime in the United States remain hot button issues in American society.

Undoubtedly, the US has remarkably high rates of violent crime compared to other developed nations in Europe and Asia, especially in certain regions, but what is the underlying cause behind these numbers? Could it be the nation’s lax gun laws and the ease of acquiring a firearm, or is there another explanation?
_
_*Is this about gun control or the lack thereof?*_​_The strictness of gun laws seems to play a role in violent crime rates, as the states with well over their share of cities in the top 100 (Table 1), like Florida, Michigan, Georgia, and Alabama, all have rather lax gun laws. However, there are exceptions: New Jersey, home to five cities in the top 100, and Illinois, home to three (including #98 Chicago) have very strict gun laws.

Although mass shootings are becoming increasingly common in American life, the violent crime and prevalence of gun murders plaguing America’s most dangerous cities aren’t best explained by lax gun laws, rates of gun ownership, or one-off rampages (although, these do have an effect), but rather, by income inequality.
_
_*Where there is a high poverty rate, and little opportunity to earn a decent wage, we find high homicide rates and a prevalence of other types of violent crime.*_​_The American communities suffering the hardest at the hands of violent crime are also some of the most impoverished in the country, with some of the highest unemployment rates, to boot."_





__





						Top 100 Most Dangerous Cities in America | National Council For Home Safety and Security
					






					www.alarms.org
				





Is the above precisely about gun violence?  No, and neither are your rants about Democrats and Progressives.  Are the various list of infame more about red than blue?  I don't know.  I didn't count because I have no desire to endlessly engage your juvenile game of "Mommy, mommy he did it first".

We have a problem in this country and it won't be solved by pretending that guns aren't some part of it. 

On my way to Arizona tomorrow.  In my absence feel free to slap me up with some more one-sided paste.


----------



## 2aguy

BLUE COLLAR said:


> I've pasted only a part of one of your many paste-rants in which you present an unbalanced selection of evidence which is not aimed at objective truth but at singling out problems in Democratic Cities and States.  ALL big cities have problems, red, blue and otherwise.  Get your head out of your ass.
> 
> 
> It took me only about five minutes to locate a reasoned report which appears below in italics.
> 
> _"Gun violence and the prevalence of violent crime in the United States remain hot button issues in American society.
> 
> Undoubtedly, the US has remarkably high rates of violent crime compared to other developed nations in Europe and Asia, especially in certain regions, but what is the underlying cause behind these numbers? Could it be the nation’s lax gun laws and the ease of acquiring a firearm, or is there another explanation?_
> 
> _*Is this about gun control or the lack thereof?*_​_The strictness of gun laws seems to play a role in violent crime rates, as the states with well over their share of cities in the top 100 (Table 1), like Florida, Michigan, Georgia, and Alabama, all have rather lax gun laws. However, there are exceptions: New Jersey, home to five cities in the top 100, and Illinois, home to three (including #98 Chicago) have very strict gun laws.
> 
> Although mass shootings are becoming increasingly common in American life, the violent crime and prevalence of gun murders plaguing America’s most dangerous cities aren’t best explained by lax gun laws, rates of gun ownership, or one-off rampages (although, these do have an effect), but rather, by income inequality._
> 
> _*Where there is a high poverty rate, and little opportunity to earn a decent wage, we find high homicide rates and a prevalence of other types of violent crime.*_​_The American communities suffering the hardest at the hands of violent crime are also some of the most impoverished in the country, with some of the highest unemployment rates, to boot."_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Top 100 Most Dangerous Cities in America | National Council For Home Safety and Security
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.alarms.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is the above precisely about gun violence?  No, and neither are your rants about Democrats and Progressives.  Are the various list of infame more about red than blue?  I don't know.  I didn't count because I have no desire to endlessly engage your juvenile game of "Mommy, mommy he did it first".
> 
> We have a problem in this country and it won't be solved by pretending that guns aren't some part of it.
> 
> On my way to Arizona tomorrow.  In my absence feel free to slap me up with some more one-sided paste.




Mass public shootings are not becoming more common...this is a typical, anti-gun trick...they conflate gun violence with mass public shootings and the two are not the same...

Gang bangers shooting at each other is not the same as a nut walking into a public space to murder innocent strangers....

In 2021, there were 6 mass public shootings in the United States.....out of over 330 million Americans.....6 individuals.....

they murdered a total of 43 people...

Meanwhile, criminal violence stemming from democrat party policies of attacking the police and releasing violent criminals resulted in over 10,000 gun murders.....

The two problems have different solutions...but gang bangers in democrat party controlled cities do not frighten the average American the way 24/7 coverage of a school shooting do...so the democrat party media cover the mass public shootings and conflate them with other criminal violence....to push gun control.


----------



## 2aguy

BLUE COLLAR said:


> I've pasted only a part of one of your many paste-rants in which you present an unbalanced selection of evidence which is not aimed at objective truth but at singling out problems in Democratic Cities and States.  ALL big cities have problems, red, blue and otherwise.  Get your head out of your ass.
> 
> 
> It took me only about five minutes to locate a reasoned report which appears below in italics.
> 
> _"Gun violence and the prevalence of violent crime in the United States remain hot button issues in American society.
> 
> Undoubtedly, the US has remarkably high rates of violent crime compared to other developed nations in Europe and Asia, especially in certain regions, but what is the underlying cause behind these numbers? Could it be the nation’s lax gun laws and the ease of acquiring a firearm, or is there another explanation?_
> 
> _*Is this about gun control or the lack thereof?*_​_The strictness of gun laws seems to play a role in violent crime rates, as the states with well over their share of cities in the top 100 (Table 1), like Florida, Michigan, Georgia, and Alabama, all have rather lax gun laws. However, there are exceptions: New Jersey, home to five cities in the top 100, and Illinois, home to three (including #98 Chicago) have very strict gun laws.
> 
> Although mass shootings are becoming increasingly common in American life, the violent crime and prevalence of gun murders plaguing America’s most dangerous cities aren’t best explained by lax gun laws, rates of gun ownership, or one-off rampages (although, these do have an effect), but rather, by income inequality._
> 
> _*Where there is a high poverty rate, and little opportunity to earn a decent wage, we find high homicide rates and a prevalence of other types of violent crime.*_​_The American communities suffering the hardest at the hands of violent crime are also some of the most impoverished in the country, with some of the highest unemployment rates, to boot."_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Top 100 Most Dangerous Cities in America | National Council For Home Safety and Security
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.alarms.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is the above precisely about gun violence?  No, and neither are your rants about Democrats and Progressives.  Are the various list of infame more about red than blue?  I don't know.  I didn't count because I have no desire to endlessly engage your juvenile game of "Mommy, mommy he did it first".
> 
> We have a problem in this country and it won't be solved by pretending that guns aren't some part of it.
> 
> On my way to Arizona tomorrow.  In my absence feel free to slap me up with some more one-sided paste.




The major cities that drive have the highest levels of gun crime are controlled by the democrat party and their policies...

You refuse to see this because you only think "guns,"  so you won't see the solutions to the actual problem....

Fatherless homes......the democrat party promotes this

Fatherless homes create boys and girls who get sucked into crime and drugs.

The democrats then attack the police forces....making them stop doing their jobs, currently forcing massive retirements, relocations to areas that are less hostile to the police in philosophy, and the DAs, who I highlighted from major American cities who are refusing to prosecute actual violent criminals, and who are working to release violent criminals create the growth environment for violent gun crime....


----------



## M14 Shooter

BLUE COLLAR said:


> No, the carnage is by the hand of those with easy access, in part due to a great supply.


The vast, vast majority of the people in the US have the right to keep and bear arms.
Why should it not be "easy" for them to exercise that right?


----------



## BLUE COLLAR

2aguy said:


> The major cities that drive have the highest levels of gun crime are controlled by the democrat party and their policies...
> 
> You refuse to see this because you only think "guns,"  so you won't see the solutions to the actual problem....
> 
> Fatherless homes......the democrat party promotes this
> 
> Fatherless homes create boys and girls who get sucked into crime and drugs.
> 
> The democrats then attack the police forces....making them stop doing their jobs, currently forcing massive retirements, relocations to areas that are less hostile to the police in philosophy, and the DAs, who I highlighted from major American cities who are refusing to prosecute actual violent criminals, and who are working to release violent criminals create the growth environment for violent gun crime....


You have argued some legitimate points in our exchanges, but much of what is given above (and in your prior post) is just a partisan rant.

I accept that anti-gun arguments can go too far, and that crowded places are part of that which contributes to violence. You need to accept that another part of the problem rest with the proliferation of weapons, and the lax manner in which they are often bought, sold and brandished.


----------



## 2aguy

BLUE COLLAR said:


> You have argued some legitimate points in our exchanges, but much of what is given above (and in your prior post) is just a partisan rant.
> 
> I accept that anti-gun arguments can go too far, and that crowded places are part of that which contributes to violence. You need to accept that another part of the problem rest with the proliferation of weapons, and the lax manner in which they are often bought, sold and brandished.



No.....we have more than enough laws......the direct cause of our gun crime problem is the democrat party and their policies.....you don't want to admit that, you want to blame the gun and protect the democrats....

The democrat party is destroying the local police and releasing violent offenders, no matter how many crimes they commit....you don't see that as the primary problem....so you won't be able to fix it.


----------



## Tom Paine 1949

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> *This quote* — and you whole last comment about Democrats and BLM being Nazi stormtroopers who as always use force to win electoral victories in NYC and other cities, who in past could not win elections without ballot stuffing and gangs and the Sullivan Act — *is totally off the wall crazy.*
> 
> You are stuck so deep in your own anti-Democratic Party fantasies and gangster movie fantasies, so ignorant of the real history in cities, so obsessed with guns …. that you ignore the actual reality that built America’s democratic culture and famous “Melting Pot.”
> 
> The vote hustling of multi-ethnic ward healers wasn’t all negative. In those days (before there even was a “civil service”) political connections and ethnic organizations played a key role: they helped immigrants get established, provided jobs in city and private life, fixed roads, provided sanitation and utilities to new communities, even built public hospitals. You link to a simple-minded _NY Post_ article, add a host of your own prejudices, and think you will impress anyone?
> 
> The role of Churches, reforms of both progressive Democratic & Republican politicians, the role of professional organizations, as well as far-sighted industrialists providing charity and private jobs and construction and city design, all this you ignore.
> 
> Also you ignore the real class differences that needed restraining, the workers leagues fighting without weapons for shorter and safer work, craft and industrial unions. You don’t see how it was precisely the haggling and messy democratic bloc voting in cities — not guns — that forced concessions from earlier ethnic elites, how troubles were often resolved through compromises arranged by ward healers and Church leaders.
> 
> You talk about guns used by gangsters but not about social welfare reformers and suffragettes. *Guns were often a profound threat to all, deeply and almost universally unwanted in our seething urban jungles of new immigrant communities, strivers, and middle-class property owners.* *Even cops were often if not always unarmed.*
> 
> All the infinite varieties of city life and politics and celebration in hundreds of different cities with their factories, grime, crime and family & Church affairs — all this you reduce to *nothing. *Why? Because that would not serve your *idiot schema* that widespread gun ownership and carrying guns in urban conditions … would have made all our cities into “beacons of light shining brightly upon a hill.”
> 
> Not everybody wanted to live in “Dodge City.” Most normal people still don’t.





2aguy said:


> Wow…….you are the lame ass…..thinking I am unaware of everything else you posted about….
> 
> My point, you twit…..is that the democrat party has a long history of using violence for its ends and today’s democrat party is no different……...from the Civil war, to Jim Crow to the Klan….,,violence has been one of its most often used tools.
> 
> My point about the democrat party and its policies attacking the police and freeing violent criminals…..is true….you are tap dancing trying to deny it…..


2aguy, you are clearly _*not *_ aware that the city and immigrant centered development of our democratic “Melting Pot” culture was based as I said NOT ON GUNS but on messy democratic electoral politics.

You are also acting like a “twit” and “lame ass” by using these words to attack me and defend your own prejudices and presumptions. Take, for instance:



> “The democrat party has a long history of using violence for its ends and today’s democrat party is no different……...from the Civil war, to Jim Crow to the Klan….,,violence has been one of its most often used tools.”



This is dumb. It could be said equally of the whole violent history of Western expansion and “Manifest Destiny,” or of U.S. society generally.

Much of what made us a great nation, the expansion and reform of electoral politics, was led by Democratic Party politicians and by Republican “progressives” like Teddy Roosevelt. Struggles to extend suffrage started way back under (Democrat) Andrew Jackson (who personally fought almost a dozen duels and vigorously opposed secessionists) and continued later by populists (agrarian anti-railroad monopolists), suffragettes and immigrant and minority communities.

This “democratizing” of society and our Republican electoral system worked ultimately to displace and lessen the role & need for guns, especially in cities, and they helped set the stage for the Civil Rights Movement too. Reform and “progressive” movements were powerful, bipartisan, but sometimes disorienting for conservatives and traditionalists. At one time they not only dramatically limited carrying guns, but even banned alcohol!

Your totally dishonest amalgamation attributing BOTH violent behavior AND anti-gun policies (in different regions and in different periods) uniquely or primarily to Democrats is silly. It was Southern pre-Civil War *society*, not any particular political party, that long maintained effective “militias” … to catch runaway slaves and protect from slave uprisings. The degradations inherent in Southern slave society created a much better armed, more martial and more violent culture there than existed in the North at that time.

Democrats (and Whigs) in the South were indeed well armed. Democrats in big Northern cities were quite different and relied on votes from immigrants. It was “Lincoln Republicans” who finally were obliged to raise armies — largely of city folk, immigrants and rural “Free Soilers” — to beat back the violent pro-slavery secessionists. “Marching through Georgia,” by the way, was a very violent thing to do … and a “Republican” campaign.

In general I defend “Lincoln Republicans”(of whom there seem rather few these days), and 19th & 20th century progressives. Though I am a gun owner myself and was once in the IRA, I am ambivalent about the “gun issue” today, as this discussion has been deformed by partisan extremists on both sides.

Your side directly attacked the police on Jan. 6th, moreover these were police protecting the very seat of our Republic. Unregistered and uncontrolled carrying of guns also makes the job of police and law enforcement much harder, especially in teeming cities. While I never support the release of violent criminals out into the public, I note we have the world’s highest rates per capita of incarceration … as well as of gun carrying.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> Though I am a gun owner myself and was once in the IRA



Again?


----------



## Papageorgio

skews13 said:


> Laws about freedom of speech don’t just shift when it comes to content and context, they’re also constantly updated to address something else: technology. Radio. Movies. Television. The internet. Even comic books. All have sparked changes in what is permitted and how speech is regulated. But somehow, we pretend that guns are different; that words written when the most deadly weapon required a ramrod and black powder mean that we can’t make adjustments for a semi-automatic rifle and a 30-round clip.
> 
> The truth is that guns _are _different. Because the right to bear arms is _a lesser right_. A right that was never intended to exist at all.
> 
> What makes individual gun ownership a lesser right? It’s a right that only exists in the minds of a handful of hard-right Supreme Court justices who happen to be on the court at this moment. Until 2008, no federal court had _ever_ ruled that the Second Amendment included a right to individual gun ownership. It was always understood as it was written: Guns were allowed in individual hands as a means to supply the armed forces.
> 
> Here’s the _Milwaukee Independent_ looking at how Chief Justice Warren Burger discussed the Second Amendment.
> 
> That the Second Amendment exists at all is more an accident of timing than an attempt to put guns in the hands of every American.
> The amendment grew out of a fear that having a standing army would leave the nation open to depredations by an authoritarian leader, or that the nascent democracy would be overthrown by a military junta. To that end, they explicitly inserted the Second Amendment as an alternative means of providing national defense.
> 
> There were multiple drafts of the Second Amendment. Every one of them includes text explaining that this amendment exists only because it’s needed to provide for the nation’s defense.
> Just a year after the Constitution was ratified, George Washington nudged Congress to create an official U.S. military, but the still-fearful Congress limited that force to just few hundred soldiers and officers. It would be another six years before it was allowed to grow significantly. When war came in 1812 two things were immediately obvious: The number of soldiers then in the official U.S. military were far from enough to defend the nation, and the poorly organized civilian militias for which the Second Amendment was created were an absolute failure when it came to national defense.
> 
> In the next year, the professional military of the United States grew by over 300%. “Second Amendment solutions” were on their way out.
> The Second Amendment is failure. It _never _worked for its intended purposes. It was born from  the understandable fears of a new nation engaged in a radical new scheme. But it was a mistake. It may be the most costly mistake this nation has ever made other than failing to end slavery at the outset.
> 
> The right thing to do would be to recognize that mistake and pass a new amendment that simply ends the Second Amendment, just as the 18th Amendment was repealed by the 21st Amendment in 1933. (Take a drink.)
> 
> Instead, we get statements like this piece of profound ignorance. One that is wrong. Wrong. Wrong again. And then … still wrong.
> 
> 
> Recognizing that an actual repeal of the Second Amendment—while absolutely just—isn’t likely, the next best thing is to simply recognize that the right to individual gun ownership is _a lesser right_, one whose appearance in that useless amendment subjects it to practical constraint.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Second Amendment was a failure from the start, and should have been repealed 200 years ago
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as an unconstrained right. Speech has limits. Religion has limits. Assembly has limits. The idea that any of these things can be completely “free” of government oversight is a pipedream, and everyone from the founders to the...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dailykos.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Individual gun ownership rights are the result of a Supreme Court decision. Specifically Heller v DC
> 
> Just like abortion rights are the result of a Supreme Court decision. Specifically Roe v Wade
> 
> The current court is ready to take away Roe v Wade.
> 
> A future court can do the same with Heller v DC.


Good thing that idiots like you weren't around 200 years ago. You are free to try to get it removed form the Constitution, and good luck.


----------



## Tom Paine 1949

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Again?


So you have nothing of substance to say … again!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> So you have nothing of substance to say … again!



NRA.


----------



## Tom Paine 1949

Toddsterpatriot :

Sorry!
I’m an old senile fool for writing “IRA” and not “NRA” … Again!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> Toddsterpatriot :
> 
> Sorry!
> I’m an old senile fool for writing “IRA” and not “NRA” … Again!



You'll get it right next time.


----------



## Friends

Guns are disgusting. People who love guns are disgusting. I want the government to punish them by confiscating their guns.


----------



## miketx

Friends said:


> Guns are disgusting. People who love guns are disgusting. I want the government to punish them by confiscating their guns.


Come get them young lady.


----------



## miketx

skews13 said:


> Laws about freedom of speech don’t just shift when it comes to content and context, they’re also constantly updated to address something else: technology. Radio. Movies. Television. The internet. Even comic books. All have sparked changes in what is permitted and how speech is regulated. But somehow, we pretend that guns are different; that words written when the most deadly weapon required a ramrod and black powder mean that we can’t make adjustments for a semi-automatic rifle and a 30-round clip.
> 
> The truth is that guns _are _different. Because the right to bear arms is _a lesser right_. A right that was never intended to exist at all.
> 
> What makes individual gun ownership a lesser right? It’s a right that only exists in the minds of a handful of hard-right Supreme Court justices who happen to be on the court at this moment. Until 2008, no federal court had _ever_ ruled that the Second Amendment included a right to individual gun ownership. It was always understood as it was written: Guns were allowed in individual hands as a means to supply the armed forces.
> 
> Here’s the _Milwaukee Independent_ looking at how Chief Justice Warren Burger discussed the Second Amendment.
> 
> That the Second Amendment exists at all is more an accident of timing than an attempt to put guns in the hands of every American.
> The amendment grew out of a fear that having a standing army would leave the nation open to depredations by an authoritarian leader, or that the nascent democracy would be overthrown by a military junta. To that end, they explicitly inserted the Second Amendment as an alternative means of providing national defense.
> 
> There were multiple drafts of the Second Amendment. Every one of them includes text explaining that this amendment exists only because it’s needed to provide for the nation’s defense.
> Just a year after the Constitution was ratified, George Washington nudged Congress to create an official U.S. military, but the still-fearful Congress limited that force to just few hundred soldiers and officers. It would be another six years before it was allowed to grow significantly. When war came in 1812 two things were immediately obvious: The number of soldiers then in the official U.S. military were far from enough to defend the nation, and the poorly organized civilian militias for which the Second Amendment was created were an absolute failure when it came to national defense.
> 
> In the next year, the professional military of the United States grew by over 300%. “Second Amendment solutions” were on their way out.
> The Second Amendment is failure. It _never _worked for its intended purposes. It was born from  the understandable fears of a new nation engaged in a radical new scheme. But it was a mistake. It may be the most costly mistake this nation has ever made other than failing to end slavery at the outset.
> 
> The right thing to do would be to recognize that mistake and pass a new amendment that simply ends the Second Amendment, just as the 18th Amendment was repealed by the 21st Amendment in 1933. (Take a drink.)
> 
> Instead, we get statements like this piece of profound ignorance. One that is wrong. Wrong. Wrong again. And then … still wrong.
> 
> 
> Recognizing that an actual repeal of the Second Amendment—while absolutely just—isn’t likely, the next best thing is to simply recognize that the right to individual gun ownership is _a lesser right_, one whose appearance in that useless amendment subjects it to practical constraint.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Second Amendment was a failure from the start, and should have been repealed 200 years ago
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as an unconstrained right. Speech has limits. Religion has limits. Assembly has limits. The idea that any of these things can be completely “free” of government oversight is a pipedream, and everyone from the founders to the...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dailykos.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Individual gun ownership rights are the result of a Supreme Court decision. Specifically Heller v DC
> 
> Just like abortion rights are the result of a Supreme Court decision. Specifically Roe v Wade
> 
> The current court is ready to take away Roe v Wade.
> 
> A future court can do the same with Heller v DC.


Laws about freedom of speech? But congress shall make no law...


----------



## M14 Shooter

Friends said:


> Guns are disgusting. People who love guns are disgusting. I want the government to punish them by confiscating their guns.


Your opinion doesn't matter.


----------



## Failzero

Friends said:


> Guns are disgusting. People who love guns are disgusting. I want the government to punish them by confiscating their guns.


Drugs are disgusting , people who do drugs are disgusting , they should be prosecuted and put in prison with their Pedo NAMBLA allies


----------



## BlackSand

Friends said:


> Guns are disgusting. People who love guns are disgusting. I want the government to punish them by confiscating their guns.


.

I am sure there are some people in Congress and Society that would agree with you ...

Luckily ... There are also some folks at the FBI and ATF approving background checks for millions of new firearms purchases a month ...
That are more than happy to let their counterparts in the government know that might not be such a great idea.

.​


----------



## Cellblock2429

Friends said:


> Guns are disgusting. People who love guns are disgusting. I want the government to punish them by confiscating their guns.


/———/ Abortions are disgusting. People who love abortions are disgusting. I want the government to punish them and confiscate their abortions. 
Ditto Vegan diets, $6 burnt coffee, smart cars, clogs, man buns, Biden Tee shirts, kale, decaf …. (Feel free to add your own.)


----------



## Rambunctious

Friends said:


> Guns are disgusting. People who love guns are disgusting. I want the government to punish them by confiscating their guns.


A gun is a tool like a hammer and chisel... tools can't be "disgusting" only people can and Americans that don't honor our constitution are disgusting....


----------



## Failzero

Rambunctious said:


> A gun is a tool like a hammer and chisel... tools can't be "disgusting" only people can and Americans that don't honor our constitution are disgusting....


Yep ( Socially Liberal Never Trumper / Never GOPer Turd party types who enable Democommies ...


----------



## bripat9643

skews13 said:


> Laws about freedom of speech don’t just shift when it comes to content and context, they’re also constantly updated to address something else: technology. Radio. Movies. Television. The internet. Even comic books. All have sparked changes in what is permitted and how speech is regulated. But somehow, we pretend that guns are different; that words written when the most deadly weapon required a ramrod and black powder mean that we can’t make adjustments for a semi-automatic rifle and a 30-round clip.
> 
> The truth is that guns _are _different. Because the right to bear arms is _a lesser right_. A right that was never intended to exist at all.
> 
> What makes individual gun ownership a lesser right? It’s a right that only exists in the minds of a handful of hard-right Supreme Court justices who happen to be on the court at this moment. Until 2008, no federal court had _ever_ ruled that the Second Amendment included a right to individual gun ownership. It was always understood as it was written: Guns were allowed in individual hands as a means to supply the armed forces.
> 
> Here’s the _Milwaukee Independent_ looking at how Chief Justice Warren Burger discussed the Second Amendment.
> 
> That the Second Amendment exists at all is more an accident of timing than an attempt to put guns in the hands of every American.
> The amendment grew out of a fear that having a standing army would leave the nation open to depredations by an authoritarian leader, or that the nascent democracy would be overthrown by a military junta. To that end, they explicitly inserted the Second Amendment as an alternative means of providing national defense.
> 
> There were multiple drafts of the Second Amendment. Every one of them includes text explaining that this amendment exists only because it’s needed to provide for the nation’s defense.
> Just a year after the Constitution was ratified, George Washington nudged Congress to create an official U.S. military, but the still-fearful Congress limited that force to just few hundred soldiers and officers. It would be another six years before it was allowed to grow significantly. When war came in 1812 two things were immediately obvious: The number of soldiers then in the official U.S. military were far from enough to defend the nation, and the poorly organized civilian militias for which the Second Amendment was created were an absolute failure when it came to national defense.
> 
> In the next year, the professional military of the United States grew by over 300%. “Second Amendment solutions” were on their way out.
> The Second Amendment is failure. It _never _worked for its intended purposes. It was born from  the understandable fears of a new nation engaged in a radical new scheme. But it was a mistake. It may be the most costly mistake this nation has ever made other than failing to end slavery at the outset.
> 
> The right thing to do would be to recognize that mistake and pass a new amendment that simply ends the Second Amendment, just as the 18th Amendment was repealed by the 21st Amendment in 1933. (Take a drink.)
> 
> Instead, we get statements like this piece of profound ignorance. One that is wrong. Wrong. Wrong again. And then … still wrong.
> 
> 
> Recognizing that an actual repeal of the Second Amendment—while absolutely just—isn’t likely, the next best thing is to simply recognize that the right to individual gun ownership is _a lesser right_, one whose appearance in that useless amendment subjects it to practical constraint.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Second Amendment was a failure from the start, and should have been repealed 200 years ago
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as an unconstrained right. Speech has limits. Religion has limits. Assembly has limits. The idea that any of these things can be completely “free” of government oversight is a pipedream, and everyone from the founders to the...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dailykos.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Individual gun ownership rights are the result of a Supreme Court decision. Specifically Heller v DC
> 
> Just like abortion rights are the result of a Supreme Court decision. Specifically Roe v Wade
> 
> The current court is ready to take away Roe v Wade.
> 
> A future court can do the same with Heller v DC.


There are no laws about freedom of speech, moron.  You posted an oxymoron.

Where does the Constitution mention "lessor rights?"  It doesn't.  That's a term morons like you invented.  If you want to amend the Constitution, then I suggest you get started on your campaign.  Until then, you'll have to live with it.


----------



## bripat9643

Friends said:


> Guns are disgusting. People who love guns are disgusting. I want the government to punish them by confiscating their guns.


Servile gun grabbers are disgusting.


----------



## FA_Q2

Cellblock2429 said:


> /———/ Abortions are disgusting. People who love abortions are disgusting. I want the government to punish them and confiscate their abortions.
> Ditto Vegan diets, $6 burnt coffee, smart cars, clogs, man buns, Biden Tee shirts, kale, decaf …. (Feel free to add your own.)


This.


----------



## 2aguy

Friends said:


> Guns are disgusting. People who love guns are disgusting. I want the government to punish them by confiscating their guns.




Do you realize that in the 1920s the Europeans banned and confiscated guns from their citizens...citing that this would make them safer, and that the government would protect them?

By 1933, the German socialists, having disarmed Jews and the political enemies of the socialists, began the process of murdering 15 million innocent men, women and children...not criminals, just normal people.............they murdered these people all across Europe, in the countries they conquered, and countries that, in the 1920s, had taken guns away from their people.  In 1939-1945, this is when the majority of the murders occurred....6 years.....

Do you understand that if you add up all the people murdered by guns in the United States, the majority of whom are criminals.....murdered by other criminals.....in 246 years of our existence, we don't even come close 15 million murdered.....

Guns keep that from happening again......do you understand this?  Likely not....


----------



## Friends

miketx said:


> Come get them young lady.


I like the saying, "When guns are outlawed they will take my gun from my cold, dead hand." It sounds like a good idea.


----------



## miketx

Friends said:


> I like the saying, "When guns are outlawed they will take my gun from my cold, dead hand." It sounds like a good idea.


Come try it faggot.


----------



## Friends

miketx said:


> Come try it faggot.


People like you are too mentally unbalanced to be permitted to own guns.


----------



## Friends

Viewpoints/ Mike Royko Columnist aims, fires criticism at gun owners​​Once again, it’s time to bestow one of the least-coveted honors in America this column’s Gun Owner of the Year Award. For reasons I don’t understand, this award upsets some gun owners and the National Rifle Association, who always remind me that the majority of gun owners are prudent and careful and seldom shoot anybody. Sure they are. But all I try to do is acknowledge the efforts of that tiny minority of gun owners who account for 35,000 gunshot deaths and countless woundings that occur each year.

Don’t they deserve some recognition? OF COURSE THEY do. That’s why, in past years, we’ve honored such winners as the sleepy man who picked up his gun, instead of his ringing phone, and shot himself in the ear. And the angry man who shot his girlfriend in the thigh because she cooked him string beans once too often.

Selecting the winner out of this year’s finalists wasn’t easy. As usual, there were the many hunters who mistook their peers for wild turkeys, deer, squirrels and possums. It’s amazing what a striking resemblance there is between the average person and the average wild turkey. So the Outstanding Achievement by a Deer Slayer Award goes to a New Hampshire man who saw what he thought was a deer coming over a rise in a road. He fired, and scored a direct hit. The deer turned out to be a truck, and the driver took a bullet in the shoulder. FORTUNATELY, the hunter realized his error in time and did not skin the driver or have the truck mounted.

In Rock Island, 111., a man put his rifle on the ground after shooting a passing bird. As he bent to pick up the bird’s carcass, his dog stepped on the shotgun trigger, causing it to fire and wound the bird-slayer. This confirms the NRA’s slogan; “Guns don’t shoot people dogs shoot people.”





						Daily Kent Stater 15 January 1985 — Kent State University
					

Kent State University




					dks.library.kent.edu
				




One winner of Mike Royko's Gun Owner of the Year Award thought he saw a burglar at the foot of his bed. He slept with a revolver under his pillow, and shot at the burglar. There was no burglar. Instead he shot his penis off. That was fitting, because guns are a phallic symbol.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Friends said:


> Viewpoints/ Mike Royko Columnist aims, fires criticism at gun owners​​Once again, it’s time to bestow one of the least-coveted honors in America this column’s Gun Owner of the Year Award. For reasons I don’t understand, this award upsets some gun owners and the National Rifle Association, who always remind me that the majority of gun owners are prudent and careful and seldom shoot anybody. Sure they are. But all I try to do is acknowledge the efforts of that tiny minority of gun owners who account for 35,000 gunshot deaths and countless woundings that occur each year.
> 
> Don’t they deserve some recognition? OF COURSE THEY do. That’s why, in past years, we’ve honored such winners as the sleepy man who picked up his gun, instead of his ringing phone, and shot himself in the ear. And the angry man who shot his girlfriend in the thigh because she cooked him string beans once too often.
> 
> Selecting the winner out of this year’s finalists wasn’t easy. As usual, there were the many hunters who mistook their peers for wild turkeys, deer, squirrels and possums. It’s amazing what a striking resemblance there is between the average person and the average wild turkey. So the Outstanding Achievement by a Deer Slayer Award goes to a New Hampshire man who saw what he thought was a deer coming over a rise in a road. He fired, and scored a direct hit. The deer turned out to be a truck, and the driver took a bullet in the shoulder. FORTUNATELY, the hunter realized his error in time and did not skin the driver or have the truck mounted.
> 
> In Rock Island, 111., a man put his rifle on the ground after shooting a passing bird. As he bent to pick up the bird’s carcass, his dog stepped on the shotgun trigger, causing it to fire and wound the bird-slayer. This confirms the NRA’s slogan; “Guns don’t shoot people dogs shoot people.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daily Kent Stater 15 January 1985 — Kent State University
> 
> 
> Kent State University
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dks.library.kent.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One winner of Mike Royko's Gun Owner of the Year Award thought he saw a burglar at the foot of his bed. He slept with a revolver under his pillow, and shot at the burglar. There was no burglar. Instead he shot his penis off. That was fitting, because guns are a phallic symbol.


----------



## 2aguy

Friends said:


> Viewpoints/ Mike Royko Columnist aims, fires criticism at gun owners​​Once again, it’s time to bestow one of the least-coveted honors in America this column’s Gun Owner of the Year Award. For reasons I don’t understand, this award upsets some gun owners and the National Rifle Association, who always remind me that the majority of gun owners are prudent and careful and seldom shoot anybody. Sure they are. But all I try to do is acknowledge the efforts of that tiny minority of gun owners who account for 35,000 gunshot deaths and countless woundings that occur each year.
> 
> Don’t they deserve some recognition? OF COURSE THEY do. That’s why, in past years, we’ve honored such winners as the sleepy man who picked up his gun, instead of his ringing phone, and shot himself in the ear. And the angry man who shot his girlfriend in the thigh because she cooked him string beans once too often.
> 
> Selecting the winner out of this year’s finalists wasn’t easy. As usual, there were the many hunters who mistook their peers for wild turkeys, deer, squirrels and possums. It’s amazing what a striking resemblance there is between the average person and the average wild turkey. So the Outstanding Achievement by a Deer Slayer Award goes to a New Hampshire man who saw what he thought was a deer coming over a rise in a road. He fired, and scored a direct hit. The deer turned out to be a truck, and the driver took a bullet in the shoulder. FORTUNATELY, the hunter realized his error in time and did not skin the driver or have the truck mounted.
> 
> In Rock Island, 111., a man put his rifle on the ground after shooting a passing bird. As he bent to pick up the bird’s carcass, his dog stepped on the shotgun trigger, causing it to fire and wound the bird-slayer. This confirms the NRA’s slogan; “Guns don’t shoot people dogs shoot people.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daily Kent Stater 15 January 1985 — Kent State University
> 
> 
> Kent State University
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dks.library.kent.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One winner of Mike Royko's Gun Owner of the Year Award thought he saw a burglar at the foot of his bed. He slept with a revolver under his pillow, and shot at the burglar. There was no burglar. Instead he shot his penis off. That was fitting, because guns are a phallic symbol.



You didn’t answer my post……coward. Post # 795


----------



## miketx

Friends said:


> People like you are too mentally unbalanced to be permitted to own guns.


Come get them faggot.


----------



## Friends

2aguy said:


> Do you realize that in the 1920s the Europeans banned and confiscated guns from their citizens...citing that this would make them safer, and that the government would protect them?
> 
> By 1933, the German socialists, having disarmed Jews and the political enemies of the socialists, began the process of murdering 15 million innocent men, women and children...not criminals, just normal people.............they murdered these people all across Europe, in the countries they conquered, and countries that, in the 1920s, had taken guns away from their people.  In 1939-1945, this is when the majority of the murders occurred....6 years.....
> 
> Do you understand that if you add up all the people murdered by guns in the United States, the majority of whom are criminals.....murdered by other criminals.....in 246 years of our existence, we don't even come close 15 million murdered.....
> 
> Guns keep that from happening again......do you understand this?  Likely not....


The possibility that Trump will set up a dictatorship is too remote for me to worry about. Too many people like me hate him. The possibility that I will be shot with a gun is incomparably greater.


----------



## Friends

miketx said:


> Come get them faggot.


You just reinforced my earlier statement.


----------



## Tom Paine 1949

skews13 said:


> Laws about freedom of speech don’t just shift when it comes to content and context, they’re also constantly updated to address something else: technology. Radio. Movies. Television. The internet. Even comic books. All have sparked changes in what is permitted and how speech is regulated. But somehow, we pretend that guns are different; that words written when the most deadly weapon required a ramrod and black powder mean that we can’t make adjustments for a semi-automatic rifle and a 30-round clip.
> 
> The truth is that guns _are _different. Because the right to bear arms is _a lesser right_. A right that was never intended to exist at all.
> 
> What makes individual gun ownership a lesser right? It’s a right that only exists in the minds of a handful of hard-right Supreme Court justices who happen to be on the court at this moment. Until 2008, no federal court had _ever_ ruled that the Second Amendment included a right to individual gun ownership. It was always understood as it was written: Guns were allowed in individual hands as a means to supply the armed forces.
> 
> Here’s the _Milwaukee Independent_ looking at how Chief Justice Warren Burger discussed the Second Amendment.
> 
> That the Second Amendment exists at all is more an accident of timing than an attempt to put guns in the hands of every American.
> The amendment grew out of a fear that having a standing army would leave the nation open to depredations by an authoritarian leader, or that the nascent democracy would be overthrown by a military junta. To that end, they explicitly inserted the Second Amendment as an alternative means of providing national defense.
> 
> There were multiple drafts of the Second Amendment. Every one of them includes text explaining that this amendment exists only because it’s needed to provide for the nation’s defense.
> Just a year after the Constitution was ratified, George Washington nudged Congress to create an official U.S. military, but the still-fearful Congress limited that force to just few hundred soldiers and officers. It would be another six years before it was allowed to grow significantly. When war came in 1812 two things were immediately obvious: The number of soldiers then in the official U.S. military were far from enough to defend the nation, and the poorly organized civilian militias for which the Second Amendment was created were an absolute failure when it came to national defense.
> 
> In the next year, the professional military of the United States grew by over 300%. “Second Amendment solutions” were on their way out.
> The Second Amendment is failure. It _never _worked for its intended purposes. It was born from  the understandable fears of a new nation engaged in a radical new scheme. But it was a mistake. It may be the most costly mistake this nation has ever made other than failing to end slavery at the outset.
> 
> The right thing to do would be to recognize that mistake and pass a new amendment that simply ends the Second Amendment, just as the 18th Amendment was repealed by the 21st Amendment in 1933. (Take a drink.)
> 
> Instead, we get statements like this piece of profound ignorance. One that is wrong. Wrong. Wrong again. And then … still wrong.
> 
> 
> Recognizing that an actual repeal of the Second Amendment—while absolutely just—isn’t likely, the next best thing is to simply recognize that the right to individual gun ownership is _a lesser right_, one whose appearance in that useless amendment subjects it to practical constraint.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Second Amendment was a failure from the start, and should have been repealed 200 years ago
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as an unconstrained right. Speech has limits. Religion has limits. Assembly has limits. The idea that any of these things can be completely “free” of government oversight is a pipedream, and everyone from the founders to the...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dailykos.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Individual gun ownership rights are the result of a Supreme Court decision. Specifically Heller v DC
> 
> Just like abortion rights are the result of a Supreme Court decision. Specifically Roe v Wade
> 
> The current court is ready to take away Roe v Wade.
> 
> A future court can do the same with Heller v DC.


This OP is actually quite interesting and makes some valid points, especially that the 2nd Amendment was written and structured in historically contingent terms, seen as encouraging and guaranteeing that the federal government would recognize state militia for defense, in the absence of a significant national standing army. It was not at all then seen as an absolute _*individual*_  right, but as a political compromise to secure states their own citizen militias to provide for the *people’s*  defense.

The discussion of what is “disgusting” or not … is just ridiculous.

On the other hand, it is more than relevant that for about two centuries the country prospered without the modern judicial interpretation that this is an individual right on the same level as, say, free speech.

Of course all these rights were not then seen as applying to states, who had their own Constitutions and great latitude then in regulating state militia, free speech, voting, even slavery.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Friends said:


> I like the saying, "When guns are outlawed they will take my gun from my cold, dead hand." It sounds like a good idea.


Stack up and try it, sweetie.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Friends said:


> Once again, it’s time to bestow one of the least-coveted honors in America this column’s Gun Owner of the Year Award​


Your opinion does not matter.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> It was not at all then seen as an absolute _*individual*_  right, but as a political compromise to secure states their own citizen militias to provide for the *people’s*  defense.


The collective cannot have a right that each of its individual members do not, unto themselves, also hold.
Further, you cannot have a right to possess and use property owned by someone else.


----------



## Tom Paine 1949

M14 Shooter said:


> The collective cannot have a right that each of its individual members do not, unto themselves, also hold.
> Further, you cannot have a right to possess and use property owned by someone else.


That is too silly. Corporations have rights and responsibilities that individuals do not have. The Federal government, state governments, municipal government, even cooperatives and condos all have responsibilities and rights their members do not have.

Ditto of course with the National Guard and its officers, which are formally under the Commander and Chief, who has “the ultimate right” to order it into action. You think every member of the National Guard or Army has the “right” to refuse an order?


----------



## badbob85037

skews13 said:


> Laws about freedom of speech don’t just shift when it comes to content and context, they’re also constantly updated to address something else: technology. Radio. Movies. Television. The internet. Even comic books. All have sparked changes in what is permitted and how speech is regulated. But somehow, we pretend that guns are different; that words written when the most deadly weapon required a ramrod and black powder mean that we can’t make adjustments for a semi-automatic rifle and a 30-round clip.
> 
> The truth is that guns _are _different. Because the right to bear arms is _a lesser right_. A right that was never intended to exist at all.
> 
> What makes individual gun ownership a lesser right? It’s a right that only exists in the minds of a handful of hard-right Supreme Court justices who happen to be on the court at this moment. Until 2008, no federal court had _ever_ ruled that the Second Amendment included a right to individual gun ownership. It was always understood as it was written: Guns were allowed in individual hands as a means to supply the armed forces.
> 
> Here’s the _Milwaukee Independent_ looking at how Chief Justice Warren Burger discussed the Second Amendment.
> 
> That the Second Amendment exists at all is more an accident of timing than an attempt to put guns in the hands of every American.
> The amendment grew out of a fear that having a standing army would leave the nation open to depredations by an authoritarian leader, or that the nascent democracy would be overthrown by a military junta. To that end, they explicitly inserted the Second Amendment as an alternative means of providing national defense.
> 
> There were multiple drafts of the Second Amendment. Every one of them includes text explaining that this amendment exists only because it’s needed to provide for the nation’s defense.
> Just a year after the Constitution was ratified, George Washington nudged Congress to create an official U.S. military, but the still-fearful Congress limited that force to just few hundred soldiers and officers. It would be another six years before it was allowed to grow significantly. When war came in 1812 two things were immediately obvious: The number of soldiers then in the official U.S. military were far from enough to defend the nation, and the poorly organized civilian militias for which the Second Amendment was created were an absolute failure when it came to national defense.
> 
> In the next year, the professional military of the United States grew by over 300%. “Second Amendment solutions” were on their way out.
> The Second Amendment is failure. It _never _worked for its intended purposes. It was born from  the understandable fears of a new nation engaged in a radical new scheme. But it was a mistake. It may be the most costly mistake this nation has ever made other than failing to end slavery at the outset.
> 
> The right thing to do would be to recognize that mistake and pass a new amendment that simply ends the Second Amendment, just as the 18th Amendment was repealed by the 21st Amendment in 1933. (Take a drink.)
> 
> Instead, we get statements like this piece of profound ignorance. One that is wrong. Wrong. Wrong again. And then … still wrong.
> 
> 
> Recognizing that an actual repeal of the Second Amendment—while absolutely just—isn’t likely, the next best thing is to simply recognize that the right to individual gun ownership is _a lesser right_, one whose appearance in that useless amendment subjects it to practical constraint.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Second Amendment was a failure from the start, and should have been repealed 200 years ago
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as an unconstrained right. Speech has limits. Religion has limits. Assembly has limits. The idea that any of these things can be completely “free” of government oversight is a pipedream, and everyone from the founders to the...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dailykos.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Individual gun ownership rights are the result of a Supreme Court decision. Specifically Heller v DC
> 
> Just like abortion rights are the result of a Supreme Court decision. Specifically Roe v Wade
> 
> The current court is ready to take away Roe v Wade.
> 
> A future court can do the same with Heller v DC.


Shut the fuck up and move to another country where they are all cowards and need the government to protect the your rat ass.


----------



## Tom Paine 1949

badbob85037 said:


> Shut the fuck up and move to another country where they are all cowards and need the government to protect the your rat ass.


This is another stupid response to a serious historically grounded OP. If you disagree with skews13 ’s analysis of the 2nd Amendment and its judicial interpretation in the past, surely you can give a better response. You just discredit yourself by responding this way.


----------



## badbob85037

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> That is too silly. Corporations have rights and responsibilities that individuals do not have. The Federal government, state governments, municipal government, even cooperatives and condos all have responsibilities and rights their members do not have.
> 
> Ditto of course with the National Guard and its officers, which are formally under the Commander and Chief, who has “the ultimate right” to order it into action. You think every member of the National Guard or Army has the “right” to refuse an order?


Sure he does as he says Don't ask what you can do for the country but what you can do the country for.  Not only did he not serve the military he has never volunteered for anything except government hand outs, methadone, and food stamps. I know what he is thinking. 'This guy must know me'. No and I don't want too. It's just you worthless shits are all a like.


----------



## Tom Paine 1949

I don’t know either him or you. I’m also not interested in “mind reading” or guessing what he or you are really like. All I see is that he has made an historical argument and you are responding with vulgar personal attacks.

By the way, I have registered weapons, and a concealed carry license, and I used to belong to the NRA. I don’t agree with the OP completely. I also don’t appreciate your insults — but go ahead if you must. As I said, you are just further discrediting yourself.


----------



## Cellblock2429

Friends said:


> I like the saying, "When guns are outlawed they will take my gun from my cold, dead hand." It sounds like a good idea.


/——-/ Adolf would be proud of you.


----------



## Friends

badbob85037 said:


> Shut the fuck up and move to another country where they are all cowards and need the government to protect the your rat ass.


I want the government to protect me from potential criminals like you. Sensible gun laws would deny you the right to own a gun. When you acquired one anyway, you would be severely punished.


----------



## bripat9643

Friends said:


> The possibility that Trump will set up a dictatorship is too remote for me to worry about. Too many people like me hate him. The possibility that I will be shot with a gun is incomparably greater.


However, the the possibility that Biden or some other Dim will become a dictator is quite significant.  Hence, the reason we need to own guns.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Friends said:


> I want the government to protect me from potential criminals like you. Sensible gun laws would deny you the right to own a gun. When you acquired one anyway, you would be severely punished.


Your opinion does not matter.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> That is too silly. Corporations have rights and responsibilities that individuals do not have.


We're not talking about corporations or governments.
We're talking about a group of individuals that, collectively, have the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.
This right cannot exist unless each of the individuals in the collective also have that right.


----------



## Friends

bripat9643 said:


> However, the the possibility that Biden or some other Dim will become a dictator is quite significant.  Hence, the reason we need to own guns.


Biden does not want to be a dictator. Trump does.


----------



## miketx

Friends said:


> Biden does not want to be a dictator. Trump does.


Sez the lying bitch.


----------



## bripat9643

Friends said:


> Biden does not want to be a dictator. Trump does.


ROFL!   He shows all the signs of wanting to be a dictator.  Only wannabee dictators use the government to persecute their political opponents.


----------



## 2aguy

Friends said:


> The possibility that Trump will set up a dictatorship is too remote for me to worry about. Too many people like me hate him. The possibility that I will be shot with a gun is incomparably greater.




And the FBI being used as gestapo for the democrats, and the 81,000 new democrat party tax agents?

Now this thread is getting side tracked......so go back to the original topic


----------



## westwall

Friends said:


> Biden does not want to be a dictator. Trump does.





Vaccine mandates say you are a LIAR.


----------



## miketx

Friends said:


> The possibility that Trump will set up a dictatorship is too remote for me to worry about. Too many people like me hate him. The possibility that I will be shot with a gun is incomparably greater.


I hope they hurry. Scum like you are dangerous.


----------



## miketx

2aguy said:


> And the FBI being used as gestapo for the democrats, and the 81,000 new democrat party tax agents?
> 
> Now this thread is getting side tracked......so go back to the original topic


That's a lie!!!!!!  It's 87,000 gestapo faggots!


----------



## Friends

miketx said:


> I hope they hurry. Scum like you are dangerous.


We are dangerous to people like you because we comprise the vast majority of Americans who want stricter gun control laws.


----------



## Friends

2aguy said:


> And the FBI being used as gestapo for the democrats, and the 81,000 new democrat party tax agents?
> 
> Now this thread is getting side tracked......so go back to the original topic


The government needs more money. Consequently we need more IRS agents to apprehend those who are evading income tax laws.


----------



## Friends

bripat9643 said:


> ROFL!   He shows all the signs of wanting to be a dictator.  Only wannabee dictators use the government to persecute their political opponents.


Trump deserves to be persecuted and imprisoned.


----------



## 2aguy

Friends said:


> We are dangerous to people like you because we comprise the vast majority of Americans who want stricter gun control laws.




No...you are dangerous to us because people like you around the world ended up murdering close to 200 million people....after 1917.....during the modern era........after you took away their guns on the same promises about safety you are making in these threads....


----------



## 2aguy

Friends said:


> Trump deserves to be persecuted and imprisoned.
> 
> View attachment 687933




What did he do?  Please...give us some details.......we have been waiting since 2016 for people like you to tell us the exact crimes he committed....and all we get is...."he committed crimes...."...so please...explain...


----------



## 2aguy

Friends said:


> The government needs more money. Consequently we need more IRS agents to apprehend those who are evading income tax laws.




The government does not need more money...in fact, the government has been given way too much money...


----------



## miketx

Friends said:


> We are dangerous to people like you because we comprise the vast majority of Americans who want stricter gun control laws.


Yeah but gun control never works and you're to stupid to see that. So. Come get mine commie.


----------



## miketx

Friends said:


> Biden does not want to be a dictator. Trump does.


Bye vermin.


----------



## westwall

Friends said:


> We are dangerous to people like you because we comprise the vast majority of Americans who want stricter gun control laws.






There are more first time gun owners now, than there were ten years ago.

So you are not just wrong, but epically wrong.


----------



## Friends

2aguy said:


> What did he do?  Please...give us some details.......we have been waiting since 2016 for people like you to tell us the exact crimes he committed....and all we get is...."he committed crimes...."...so please...explain...


----------



## Friends

2aguy said:


> No...you are dangerous to us because people like you around the world ended up murdering close to 200 million people....after 1917.....during the modern era........after you took away their guns on the same promises about safety you are making in these threads....


Trump rallies resemble Hitler rallies Democrat rallies do not.


----------



## 2aguy

Friends said:


> Trump rallies resemble Hitler rallies Democrat rallies do not.




Wow......are you an adult?   

Trump rallies are fun and actually funny.....democrat party rallies should have swastika flags all over the place, or the hammer and sickle, simply choose the totalitarian flag of your choice........

And you didn't answer my question........


----------



## 2aguy

Friends said:


> View attachment 687968
> 
> View attachment 687969




Yes.......what crimes?    You can list all the democrat party gestapo tactics you want...but what crime is he accused of?


----------



## miketx

2aguy said:


> Yes.......what crimes?    You can list all the democrat party gestapo tactics you want...but what crime is he accused of?


Please don't hold your breath waiting for that lying pos to answer.


----------



## Friends

2aguy said:


> What did he do?  Please...give us some details.......we have been waiting since 2016 for people like you to tell us the exact crimes he committed....and all we get is...."he committed crimes...."...so please...explain...


----------



## bripat9643

Friends said:


> We are dangerous to people like you because we comprise the vast majority of Americans who want stricter gun control laws.


You're dangerous because you can vote.


----------



## bripat9643

Friends said:


> Trump deserves to be persecuted and imprisoned.
> 
> View attachment 687933


By definition of the term, no one deserves to be persecuted, moron.


----------



## bripat9643

Friends said:


> View attachment 688001
> 
> 
> View attachment 688002


Soros paid each of them $250,000


----------



## Bob Blaylock

Skews13 was a failure, and should have been aborted 65 years ago.


----------



## 2aguy

Friends said:


> View attachment 688001
> 
> 
> View attachment 688002




Yeah....not so much......he stated on tape that in hollywood, the women let you touch them.....he didn't say he attacked them.....and so, where are the actual crimes?   These are allegations....

The allegations against biden are just as available........you don't want to face those...


----------



## Rigby5

skews13 said:


> The amendment grew out of a fear that having a standing army would leave the nation open to depredations by an authoritarian leader, or that the nascent democracy would be overthrown by a military junta. To that end, they explicitly inserted the Second Amendment as an alternative means of providing national defense.



True, but ALWAYS will remain true.
Government is always one of the biggest threats to our freedom.
Look at how the government has lied and murdered, like Manifest Destiny, the Spanish American war, WWI, Vietnam, the Korean war, Grenada, Panama, Nicaragua, Cuba, Iraq, Afghanistan, Prohibition, the War on Drugs, etc.

The problem is not the 2nd amendment, but the fact we illegally have government creep, like the BATF, DEA, Homeland Security, the TSA, FDA, and lots of illegal, expensive, abusive, etc. federal thugs.


----------



## Rigby5

Rye Catcher said:


> What a foolish argument this is in defense with the 2nd A.



Wrong.
This is a very good defense for the 2nd Amendment because there are very few psychotics who want to shoot up schools.  If schools were better, there might not be any at all.
But there ALWAYS have been lots of corrupt and evil governments.
The history is full of corrupt and evil governments.
There really are not any honest and benevolent government exceptions.
Even our current government tries to sound honest and benevolent, but the truth is they are corrupt, evil, and greedy too, with things like no public health care, the War on Drugs, mandated sentences, asset forfeiture, WMD lies about Iraq, etc.

What improved government from the really evil monarchies and theocracies of just a few hundred years ago, was constant armed rebellion.
Government did not improve on its own, but required armed force.
And government has to still get a whole lot better.
It is still evil, corrupt, and dangerous.
The only reason it is not worse is the threat from the population being armed.


----------



## 2aguy

Rigby5 said:


> Wrong.
> This is a very good defense for the 2nd Amendment because there are very few psychotics who want to shoot up schools.  If schools were better, there might not be any at all.
> But there ALWAYS have been lots of corrupt and evil governments.
> The history is full of corrupt and evil governments.
> There really are not any honest and benevolent government exceptions.
> Even our current government tries to sound honest and benevolent, but the truth is they are corrupt, evil, and greedy too, with things like no public health care, the War on Drugs, mandated sentences, asset forfeiture, WMD lies about Iraq, etc.
> 
> What improved government from the really evil monarchies and theocracies of just a few hundred years ago, was constant armed rebellion.
> Government did not improve on its own, but required armed force.
> And government has to still get a whole lot better.
> It is still evil, corrupt, and dangerous.
> The only reason it is not worse is the threat from the population being armed.




Yep......350 million Americans...in 2021 there were 6 mass public shootings.....6 people out of over 350 million Americans.   For that, they want to ban and confiscate all guns....while governments around the world are responsible for the murder of close to, if not over, 200 million innocent men, women and children.......

This is why they can't be reasoned with.....they are irrational people.


----------

